The Death of Democracy in Canada
There is something quaint about politics in Canada, especially versus the United States. Ordinary people volunteer, and come together with like-minded people and work together, with tremendous passion, to win elections! It’s a beautiful thing to watch. I have a great deal of respect for these people: Liberals, Conservatives, NDPers, Greens, and everyone else. Even if I disagree with them on policy, I have to admire their passion and dedication.
When I became involved in politics, I was inspired by the other volunteers that I met far more than the politicians and the leaders.
In the years since, I’ve seen these volunteer numbers dwindle. In every party.
Why?
1. People lead busy lives, they have other more pressing concerns. This is obvious, and not entirely new. But perhaps moreso than before.
2. People think politics is irrelevant to their lives. This is especially true with young people. This has been said in past generations, but as people “grew up” they would eventually “come around”. This trend is over. The disaffected youth of the 90s have become the disaffected 30-somethings of today.
3. Politics in this country these days has gotten so dirty and partisan, that, instead of inspiring people, I think it turns most people off, or at the very least makes them feel indifferent. And in a day and age when “Mixed Martial Arts” is one of the most popular sports, the slug-fest politics has become just isn’t bloody enough to even inspire teenage boys to join in.
4. These election impropriety allegations flying around disgust people. They are disgusted at the thought they are true, they are disgusted by the allegations, and they are disgusted at the childish way the accusers take delight in the accusations. I’m feeling a bit of disgust myself these days.
This recent witch-hunt for the Conservatives by the “Ethics Committee” and Elections Canada reminds me of another era. Yes, that’s it. In a partisan quest to invent new ways to pretend to be appalled, NDP MP Pat Martin has unwittingly become Canada’s own Joseph McCarthy.
Perhaps somebody should go through his campaign books with a fine tooth comb and question every detail – without implying any misdeed, I’d fathom a guess that the accounting is not 100% perfect, and at least a few items might raise eyebrows or not pass somebody’s “smell test”. But rarely is accounting 100% perfect – even accountants will confess this. And rarely is it 100% clear – accountants won’t admit this. And the “smell test” – nothing like a little bit of subjectivity to make muddy rules a bit muddier. But I’m sure Pat Martin’s Official Agent did his best (for the cause, hooray), as does every volunteer Official Agent I’ve ever known.
5. As alluded in number 4, the interpretation, reinterpretation, misinterpretation, conflicting and unreadable rules and regulations governing elections, which were no doubt meant with good intention to encourage democratic discourse in the fairest possible way, are clearly not working. I’m sure the little old lady who started by passing out brochures for her local candidate at the shopping plaza wasn’t expecting she’d end up in some cold prison cell because she put her hand up to help with the bookkeeping for the local association.
Now let’s consider the rules about campaign spending limits. When was this concept invented? I actually have no idea, but I know it predates the popularity of the Internet. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was invented when most Canadians watched one of a few nightly newscasts pretty regularly, and we all lived in our little homogeneous “CBC and 3 other channels” universe.
PLEASE NOTE: The world has changed!
National Campaigns and local campaigns cannot be considered separately, it’s absurd in this day and age. What qualifies as local or national? If there were ever clearly defined lines, those days are long gone.
Voters vote for different reasons: most commonly because of the party, the stated policies of the party, or the leader. While the local candidate can make a difference, we all know it’s extremely rare that ever amounts to more than 5% (sometimes it’s enough to make a difference in a tight race).
So, if a local campaign promotes the national policies, party or leader in a local publication, is this local or national? If the “local” publication is the Toronto Star, is this local or national?
If the national party produces punjabi ads about a national policy and three Vancouver campaigns share the cost to run them, and one riding has half the punjabi-speaking population of the other 2 and they split the costs 40-40-20, is this national, local, improper expense transfers, or what?
Give me a break!
If the Liberal Party wants to take a bunch of money they would be wasting in Calgary and spend it to print larger ads in the Toronto Star, why should anyone care? I certainly wouldn’t.
Maybe having a “total cap” on spending for an entire party is workable, but even then, our numbers don’t even come remotely close to the U.S. numbers, so what are we trying to accomplish? Fairness? What’s fair about repressing people’s right to free speech during an election anyway?
All these rules, while well-intentioned, have only served to further turn people off of politics in this country.
6. The integrity of Elections Canada is being called into question. Are they biased? Are they favouring Liberals by not focusing on their imperfections (need we say “sponsorship scandal” again), or are they just busy bureaucrats enforcing a dog’s breakfast of rules and regulations that could be interpreted 1000 different ways? In the long run, it doesn’t matter – if people can’t trust the non-partisan elections agency to be non-partisan, we’re no better than Zimbabwe, and that’s not going to inspire anybody to be a part of politics.
Comments
-
Nicola Timmerman
Network
