Point
Shawn Katz
Left unchecked, the threat posed by a second Harper government is not one of a mere ideological nature, of left versus right. Rather, it is one which bears on the very sanctity and integrity of Canada’s national institutions and our democratic life.
Stephen Harper’s government has consistently exhibited traits which, if permitted and encouraged, risk irreparably debasing and narrowing the political discourse in this country. What we may be left with is a bitter left-right culture war of such force and divisiveness as has yet to be witnessed in Canada. Nor can this be dismissed as simple left-wing fear mongering. No need. The Harper record speaks for itself.
The first signs of Harper’s autocratic penchant surfaced immediately following his election in 2006. In a bid to counter a perceived “anti-Conservative” media bias, the new government announced Harper’s own staff would now vet which journalists could ask questions and in what order. Howls of indignation instantly condemned the move as an attempt to muzzle journalists, and it sparked an interminable battle with the national press gallery. At the same time, Harper moved to effectively mute all voices outside the Prime minister’s office, leading to the now-familiar (and troublingly farcical) images of election candidates and cabinet ministers slyly ducking out backdoors to avoid the press at all costs. All this despite having been elected in 2006 largely on promises of transparency and accountability.
The Harper government has treated its political opponents with no less contempt, viewing every last issue of public policy through the narrow and divisive prism of partisan politics.
On the pressing issue of the Afghan war, when Liberals demanded answers on reports of Canadian complicity in the torture of detainees, they were smeared as Taliban-lovers by Harper himself. When Jack Layton proposed peace talks with combatants – talks since urged by Afghan President Hamid Karzai – Conservatives derided the New Democratic leader as “Taliban Jack.” Even as recently as the election campaign, Conservative communications director Ryan Sparrow was forced to resign after dismissing a dead soldier’s father as a “Liberal” after he had dared to criticize the mission. Sparrow has since been reinstated.
The corrosive forces unleashed by such hyper-partisanship soon reached our independent institutions. When the Chalk River nuclear reactor was shut down last year due to its failure to comply with safety regulations, Harper attacked the Nuclear Safety Commission president, an independent watchdog, as a “Liberal appointee.” The government then dismissed her in the dead of the night, inviting cries of McCarthyesque political interference and causing Liberal MP David McGuinty to lament “the kinds of Republican tactics this town has never seen before.” In short, the Conservative government would stop at nothing to protect their partisan interests, even at the expense of undermining our nuclear safety regime.
Not even Elections Canada, a venerable public institution admired the world over for its professionalism and expertise, is off limits from Conservative assault. Under investigation for alleged spending irregularities during the 2006 campaign, the Conservative party sued the organization, and has striven at every opportunity to publicly undermine its credibility just to save their own skin. Citing their refusal to cooperate, Elections Canada was forced into the rare position of ordering a raid of Conservative party headquarters in April to obtain key documents. When the Bloc presented a motion in parliament expressing support of Elections Canada, the Canadian government voted against, effectively declaring no-confidence in its own independent elections body. Actions worthy of a great democracy, these are not.
Similar attacks have targeted the Senate and most recently, our artists. On Jan. 19, 2006, Harper tarred both independent judges and the independent civil service as Liberal tools. To quote the Globe and Mail’s editorial of that day, “Harper sees Liberals under every federal bed.” If you’re not with him, you’re against him; there is no good greater, no interest higher than those of the Conservative party. A free press, independent courts, a professional civil service, vibrant arts and culture, the health of our democratic structures and discourse – these, for Harper, are but necessary casualties strewn along the path to power.
Collateral damage, and nothing more.
Counterpoint
Andrew Haig
To judge by the noises coming from Liberal corners, one would think Stephen Harper was some sort of ogre: an autocrat bent on crushing our fledgling democracy under his fascist jackboot; a troglodyte who won’t rest until all Canadians are either in mansions or work-houses; a philistine who hates art and scoffs at culture; the worst Prime minister in a generation.
Twaddle.
The fact is that this sort of silly hyperbole is nothing more than sour grapes – Liberals wallowing in the excessive language that is the only consolation of opposition. And, after all, why not? Excess in speech, as in spending, has always been a Liberal prerogative. For a Conservative, in contrast, the question isn’t “Is Harper a danger to democracy?” but rather, “Compared to what?” For Conservatives, a little context, like a little government, is rarely a bad thing.
Canadians have been through only three meaningful changes of government in the last 40 years. But even a brief look at the Prime ministers who dominated this period – Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien – is enough to demonstrate definitively what a bad PM might actually look like.
Critics accuse the Harper Conservatives of being in the pocket of big business. But in fact, the Conservatives have actually been responsible for getting corporate money out of politics. Indeed, the Federal Accountability Act, the Conservatives’ first act in office, limited the maximum individual donations to political parties to $1,000, and banned outright any donations from unions or corporations. Far from rewarding lobbyists, Harper has been responsible for creating tougher restrictions on political lobbying, for making Ottawa’s purchasing policy more open and transparent, and for empowering the Auditor General to act as a real watchdog over parliament.
Compare this record to that of Harper’s predecessors: two Prime ministers investigated for corruption; a sponsorship scandal; the country driven to the brink of bankruptcy. By this standard, the Harper Tories are the model of fiduciary responsibility.
But then again, Harper cut $46 million in arts funding, so that about evens it out.
Harper is also accused of being hostile to the media and of controlling his own MPs, and there is some truth in that. But once again, context. While Harper may have demanded the right to select the questions he will answer, this is hardly the first time that a PM has been confrontational with the media. One needs only to think back to Jean Chrétien’s vendettas against the National Post and Conrad Black, to realize that Prime ministers have always been unpleasant to those that were critical of them. Harper, at least, never forced anyone to choose between receiving British honours and remaining a Canadian citizen.
Likewise, while Harper may have controlled his MPs’ talking points, this is far less offensive than Trudeau’s or Chretien’s attempts to gut the power of backbenchers within parliament. Under these two PMs, MP went from real players in the political system to virtual spectators allowed the occasional vote.
From Trudeau’s manhandling of Quebec and his own MPs to Chrétien’s mauling of his own citizens, it’s hard to see the current PM as any real danger to Canadian democracy.
But to return to the question at hand: Is a Harper government a threat to Canadian democracy? Well, yes, because all government is a threat to democracy. Whether run by Liberals or Conservatives, government is always at best a necessary evil – it’s a way of forcing people to do things they would otherwise not, and it’s a permanent temptation to abuse. It is a way of thieving people’s money, for use as the government thinks best.
And the further a government gets from the people – the more central it becomes – the less democracy there is.
But where Conservatives are a threat to democracy, they are also the solution, because Tories believe in tax cutting, and the lower taxes go, the more real people will be able to make their own decisions. And that’s real democracy.
Which is the best thing about Conservatives – when they’re done in government, there’s always less to tempt those who follow them.
