John Macfarlane is the editor of "The Walrus" magazine. In many of his opening editorials, he decries the lack of clear focus in Canadian politics. In the most recent edition, he invokes the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network" and his most famous rant : "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Macfarlane uses this to try to encourage all of us to get mad at the current state of politics and government in Canada and, indeed, the rest of the so-called democratic world.
Much of the apathy felt by modern voters stems from a deep-rooted distrust of politicians. It can be argued that this distrust has always existed: those who see their tax money go to leaders who live luxurious lives at public expense, waste in government spending, and a sense that the money is taken and spent without any consultation with the people contribute to this. Perhaps the most striking event in modern times which has exascerbated this distrust is the Watergate scandal in 1973 in the United States.
In the democracies, distrust is also caused by the sheer viciousness of partisan politics. More and more, partizanship has taken center stage in our political considerations. In the United States, it has become bitter and border-line racist. Many Republicans, who opposed the health care reforms of President Obama ( which, of course, is permitted and even encouraged in democracies ), resorted to posters and slogans of the lowest racist terms. The Tea Party movement in the U.S. calls the administration unflattering names and even has people show up at their rallies protesting gun control legislation by openly carrying semi- and fully-automatic firearms with signs threatening to use them if Democrats try to push further gun laws.
In Canada, the partizanship is not as blatantly hostile, but still contains many examples of unseemly behaviour. The Conservatives of Stephan Harper have embarked on an advertising campaign featuring scathing and unflattering images and words of their Liberal opponent, Michael Ignatieff, calling him unpatriotic, arrogant, and incompetant. Whether any of these charges have any merit is not the issue: the fact that the campaign is in full swing even before an election has been called makes the electorate cringe and want to cover their ears and eyes.
It all smacks of childishness and it is crass politics at its worst.
When I taught history at G.L. Roberts Collegiate in Oshawa, one of our tasks was to study politics and government, the theory being that informed students would become responsible voters. It is a noble idea, and I support it whole-heartedly. But one of the problems was in the core of the lessons we tried to learn. In order to create a sense of respect for our political leaders, we learned about the almost sacred traditions and honourable characteristics of government. We tried to create a mystique of the greatness and significance of those momentous actions and decisions made by our elected leaders in our parliaments. For the most part, the students bought into these ideas. However, when we took them to Queen's Park to witness Question Period, and told our students to be on their best behaviour, inevitably they were witness to some of the most outrageous and juvenile behaviour .... on the part of their elected representatives. It was embarrassing and appaling to listen and watch these parliamentarians at "work". Needless to say, these forays into the halls of power helped to create the lasting impression of cynicism as these students grew into voters. It certainly is not the students' fault for this: the fault lies in our leaders.
Such behaviour results in the partizan atmosphere parliaments have become. If one is elected to a house of assembly, one is expected to be a team player, to fulfill a role of shill, cheerleader and heckler, and then to vote as the party leadership tells one to vote. Undoubtedly, debate within parties is sometimes lively and even productive in caucus or cabinet, but when the House sits in public session, the players take up their position on the team bench and play their roles. It has become more boisterous and rancorous, and accomplishes nothing except to make the parliamentarians look bad.
Much of the apathy felt by modern voters stems from a deep-rooted distrust of politicians. It can be argued that this distrust has always existed: those who see their tax money go to leaders who live luxurious lives at public expense, waste in government spending, and a sense that the money is taken and spent without any consultation with the people contribute to this. Perhaps the most striking event in modern times which has exascerbated this distrust is the Watergate scandal in 1973 in the United States.
In the democracies, distrust is also caused by the sheer viciousness of partisan politics. More and more, partizanship has taken center stage in our political considerations. In the United States, it has become bitter and border-line racist. Many Republicans, who opposed the health care reforms of President Obama ( which, of course, is permitted and even encouraged in democracies ), resorted to posters and slogans of the lowest racist terms. The Tea Party movement in the U.S. calls the administration unflattering names and even has people show up at their rallies protesting gun control legislation by openly carrying semi- and fully-automatic firearms with signs threatening to use them if Democrats try to push further gun laws.
In Canada, the partizanship is not as blatantly hostile, but still contains many examples of unseemly behaviour. The Conservatives of Stephan Harper have embarked on an advertising campaign featuring scathing and unflattering images and words of their Liberal opponent, Michael Ignatieff, calling him unpatriotic, arrogant, and incompetant. Whether any of these charges have any merit is not the issue: the fact that the campaign is in full swing even before an election has been called makes the electorate cringe and want to cover their ears and eyes.
It all smacks of childishness and it is crass politics at its worst.
When I taught history at G.L. Roberts Collegiate in Oshawa, one of our tasks was to study politics and government, the theory being that informed students would become responsible voters. It is a noble idea, and I support it whole-heartedly. But one of the problems was in the core of the lessons we tried to learn. In order to create a sense of respect for our political leaders, we learned about the almost sacred traditions and honourable characteristics of government. We tried to create a mystique of the greatness and significance of those momentous actions and decisions made by our elected leaders in our parliaments. For the most part, the students bought into these ideas. However, when we took them to Queen's Park to witness Question Period, and told our students to be on their best behaviour, inevitably they were witness to some of the most outrageous and juvenile behaviour .... on the part of their elected representatives. It was embarrassing and appaling to listen and watch these parliamentarians at "work". Needless to say, these forays into the halls of power helped to create the lasting impression of cynicism as these students grew into voters. It certainly is not the students' fault for this: the fault lies in our leaders.
Such behaviour results in the partizan atmosphere parliaments have become. If one is elected to a house of assembly, one is expected to be a team player, to fulfill a role of shill, cheerleader and heckler, and then to vote as the party leadership tells one to vote. Undoubtedly, debate within parties is sometimes lively and even productive in caucus or cabinet, but when the House sits in public session, the players take up their position on the team bench and play their roles. It has become more boisterous and rancorous, and accomplishes nothing except to make the parliamentarians look bad.
The media has a role to play in this debacle. News packaged as entertainment apparently sells, and, in the unending competition to garner high ratings, media outlets fall over each other to pander to this behaviour. Why? Because the public laughs at the buffoonery and laps it up. Partizan hacks line up on news shows to offer "debate" or "insight" on the issues of the day, only to get into shouting matches which spews out the party line that the viewers or readers have heard before. Serious debate? Productive discussion? Where?
Macfarlane rants in several issues of "The Walrus" about this, but offers no solution, other than for his readers to get more involved in the political process. But, perhaps the solution is under our noses, and is practiced in two jurisdictions in Canada, namely Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. It is Consensus Government.
Generally and simply put, Consensus Government is democracy without political parties. When an election is held in the territories, candidates are elected based on their opinions on issues and their vision as to how the territory should be governed. The voters listen and vote for the person they agree with. A simple majority in each riding determines the elected representative. This sounds very much like what we have now, except that the candidates do not follow a prescribed party line. Where the difference occurs, however, is in the legislature itself when it convenes for the first time after an election. In the assembly room, the members choose a Speaker, a Premier and a Cabinet from within their own ranks. Undoubtedly, much politicking goes on in these opening sessions, but, when the officers are chosen, the House gets down to business. Opposition occurs naturally, but discussion is free, open, constructive, and without partizan restraint. At no time does any partizanship rear its ugly head. Work gets done, decisions are made, and the electorate is involved: the statistics for voter turnout in Nunavut are staggering. In 2008, the media was worried that voter turnout in the territorial election had dropped by 10% ... to 71% ! In 2004, over 80% of the electorate voted. Consider that Nunavat is a vast territory, where voting is often a difficult and arduous task, covering immense distances for voters to go to a poll. Those statistics make the current apathy in the rest of Canada for federal and provincial elections more stark and disappointing.
Consensus Government is not perfect, by any means. One has only to look at several municipal councils in Southern Ontario to see that disfunction can occur. But, given the immaturity of several of our provincial and federal leaders, it is an experiment whose time has surely come. The elimination of political parties doesn't mean the end of political ideas, debate, and theory. To the contrary, it could mean the salvation of these precious things.
