Political decision making used to be a responsibility taken seriously, well pondered, mulled over and mused about. The cynic would say only by the voter. Politicians take a different perspective, he would argue; their self-serving attitude has replaced serving the weal. And indeed, when we review the actions of Paul Martin since the federal election, reflected to a degree in this week’s slippery Speech from the Throne, the cynic may feel justified in his stand. Martin is more interested in remaining in power than taking a positive stand on an issue that might topple his minority government.
Martin's to-and-fro swaying on issues mirror what the populace as a whole is doing. Where is the political issue that unites people, either pro or con? There simply is none, and as Clifford Krauss asked in the New York Times last week, is Canada wilting? What’s with this national malaise of aimlessness? Where is that sense of future, that belief in tomorrow that was voiced passionately by Wilfrid Laurier? The Times article polled a number of prominent Canadian historians about the modern Canadian identity crisis, an approach that was noted and picked up on by Roy MacGregor of Canada's national newspaper in his editorial this Monday.
Krauss and MacGregor added weight to their opinions by relying on statements by Michael Bliss, Jack Granatstein and David Bercuson - intelligent and erudite historians all, scholars whose viewpoints are worthwhile, deserve pondering. However, the nature of the article, and the medium where it appeared meant that only brief nuggets of wisdom could be reproduced. Television sound bytes and radio quotes are much the same - they lack depth, detail.
Unfortunately, even in this information age, people often do not take the time to ponder at length about what they see, hear or read. Which is why in politics most everything has been reduced to meaninglessness. A ravenous media is just waiting for an error, so that they can pounce on it. The meat of any debate has been pared down to the bone, few who follow leadership debates and public political confrontations can possibly say that these staged for the media events actually tackle weighty matters. It is more about grace under pressure, style over substance, parroting the party line.
One of the best books that has reached this desk in some time is Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad." Before one jumps on the label bandwagon it bears noting that Zakaria uses the term liberal in the classical, 19th century sense - meaning concerned with individual economic, political and religious liberty - not in the modern American sense which associates it with the welfare state and affirmative action, those ailments of society that conservatives like to bash. (Are we not all, at heart, classic liberals? And if not, then what? We live in Canada under constitutional liberalism, that deep Western historical tradition that seeks to protect, as Zakaria writes, an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source - church, society or state. Society, in Canada at least, is more coercive today than ever before.)
Pigeonholing is something that society does do well. We need labels for our pols; polls to prove how we feel. Zakaria does the reader a great service by defining various political terms such as democracy, liberty, rule of justice and law, noting how tensions between democracy and liberty are rarely seen.
An impartial judge - not the mass plebiscite, Zakaria argues, best symbolizes the Western model of government. Why then the insistence for referenda, such as is the case throughout the European Union with regard to their constitutional reform? Why then the skewed influence wielded by 5-10% of the population on social issues? One answer is found in the questionable “art”, practices of polling.
Zakaria notes with emphasis how the historic forces that guided democracy in America are being eroded. Primaries and polls dominate, parties serve only as vessels to be filled with the public's taste for the moment. (Canadian parties are also victim, seeking star candidates for electoral appeal, not ability.) As Adu Raudkivi asks in this issue, how credible are polls such as the one indicating John Kerry's perceived victory in the first US presidential debate without knowing what the polls actually asked?
Zakaria notes that guided democracy has been replaced by the poll, the Blisses of the future will judge our time by the emphasis placed on the constant, never-ending search for the pulse of the people. Vast amounts of time and money and energy are being spent trying to divine what hoi polloi thinks. Polls are ambiguous, spur people lemming-like to change their views.
Martin sounds like his American peers when he keeps trotting out the bromide of what Canadians want. This homage to the individual is almost absurd - assertions prefaced by what the people want have taken on an importance, significance beyond credibility.
De Tocqueville pointed out in the 19th century how no blame is imputed onto American leaders if the majority shares their view. But, as Zakaria emphasizes, the people do sense that there is a problem, which is why North Americans have a lower regard for the political system than ever before. The rise of anti-establishment populism in Europe, the sense of dissatisfaction with existing political systems could not come at a worse time - democracies are under stress as they confront new challenges. Zakaria notes how terrorism, demographic shifts and cultural clashes thanks to immigration are rendering governments impotent in their goal to protect society from danger.
Indeed, the western political system is on the verge of being dysfunctional. Perpetual campaigning and pandering discredit Martin, Layton and Harper, never mind Bush and Kerry. Is it any wonder that voter turnouts are shockingly low everywhere?
Believing in, relying on poll results demean all of us. Polls, and pols who rely on them have created nations of pollards - animals shorn of their horns - unwilling to spar and joust on the national arena. Is it any wonder that Canadians have become punchless punchbags? Zakaria's book is a clarion call for a return to thought, measured reflection, applying the better, tried and true concepts of classical liberalism to today's changed world.
Leader: Politicking for a pulse
Arvamus
TRENDING
