- Reaction score
- 1,401
- Points
- 1,160
http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?noredirect=true
20 Jun 2015-National Post-Rex Murphy
Trudeau’s Gambit
Can a man who ignores his own promise to hold open nominations credibly claim to be a great reformer?
Murphy: ‘The most blatant carry-away from Trudeau this week is the purely political one: the party is not in crisis, but it is in trouble.’
It may be stated as an axiom that the desire to reform Parliament and the democratic system that underwrites it is proportional to any given political party’s distance from achieving power.
Parties already in power bathe in the pleasure that they have mastered the arcane and often outdated rules by which they have achieved office. While in opposition they rail at the putative inequities of the electoral system, the closed or secret nature of cabinet government, or the “topdown” nature of modern day Prime Ministerial administration.
They almost certainly declaim at the deficiencies of Parliament itself, the ritual exchange of talking points and insults (these are not mutually exclusive) during Question Period, or the disgusting incivility of parliamentary exchange in general. Parties waiting for their chance at government take an almost pastoral view of politics: they see a sky unclouded by partisan interest, ministers who stand to give real information, uninflected by partisan impulse, when asked a question; they see a prime minister as an ideal leader, one formed of the sagacity of a Socrates mixed with the temperament of an Abraham Lincoln, a creature of the greatest wisdom married to the deepest morality. They see democracy and parliamentary debate as a sweet Disney-world, drained of all rancour, emptied of all anger and bluster, utterly uncontaminated by the messy, compromising, shallow and self-serving measures and halfmeasures that — in reality, and sadness — constitute the living reality of almost every democratic government that is or ever has been.
I might offer as a corollary to this axiom that the slimmer a party’s chances of winning power, the more extravagant the vision it will offer voters should it ever achieve it. I have no doubt, for example, that if the Green party could promise to eliminate global emissions in a week and install Al Gore as the head of a new world government in two — both dreams securely fastened to their sheer impossibility — it would.
To descend to plausible reality, we may look at Justin Trudeau’s new broad-ranging, 32-point reform package as a more contained example of opposition projection. Its themes of electoral reform, ministerial accountability, a refreshed parliament, and a prime minister bound to openness and answerability are — setting aside a few points that are little more than sloganeering — a plausible set of ideas, which, if introduced and faithfully adhered to, would work to the betterment of our democracy.
But they have to be tested on a number of grounds. The first and primary one is that of trust. Even should we agree on all of these proposals, how likely is it that this fair catalogue — so bright and shiny in the months before an election — would survive and find execution in legislation and practice, should Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals actually win next fall. How many of Mr. Trudeau’s mini-magna carta for Canadian democracy would survive his victory? What do voters know of Mr. Trudeau, actually know, that would rationally lead them to believe that he would be different from so many other opposition politicians before him, who promised the world and all its delights, while on the campaign trail – and if and once successful – shuddered into being just like every other politician, who promised and reneged.
The one reform over which, indeed, he has had control, and which he did commit himself to, was that of open nominations for his party now — while still in opposition. That has gone the way of all political flesh. Liberal nominations are still as much within the gift and whim of the leader as ever they were. So, why trust him on the bigger scheme?
A second test comes to motivation. And timing. For the better part of his tenure as leader, Mr. Trudeau, in his public appearances, has confined himself to buoyant meet and greets, harvesting his undeniable celebrity persona and the gift of his truly great name. On policy — to now — he has been as taciturn as the Sphinx. The theory from his advisers was it was best to hold fire, not to give the demonic Tories ammunition to attack him too early. Recent motions in the polls, however, particularly the surprising but substantial rise of Tom Mulcair and the NDP (perhaps aided by the miracle of NDP Alberta) has shaken the Liberals. Their own fall from 39 per cent to 23 per cent has been noted not just outside the party, but also within.
How to stop the slide has to have been the question of the last month or more. The embargo on policy had to go — smiles and handshakes were clearly not enough. Thus, this week, he made his move.
Voters therefore may look at the reform package from the point of view of what prompted it, as much as for its substance; and they would be justified in doing so. Does it appear as a consequence of the Liberal’s newfound fear that their party and their leader are in a real decline? That the original flash and favour they found with their leader has dimmed and that they must, quickly, come up with proposals large enough and of sufficient headline-commanding power to slow or still Tom Mulcair’s gradual emergence as a favourite? If voters so conclude, that this package is one of partisan and not democratic necessity, that reform as an idea is itself a vote-getting gambit, then they may dismiss the whole catalogue as just another manoeuvre in the always dismal and cynical game of politics.
What is done under necessity is not always what is in the heart. So there are two areas in which this latest and largest presentation has real challenges. First, will voters trust any comprehensive reform package from any party in opposition as anything more than they have heard long and often before?
Secondly, how much will they trust so large a package that came — relatively late — from a leader sinking in the polls, who up to this point was determined to shield his policy measures till such time as the writ was near dropping, and with an already established willingness to ignore his own prior declarations on such a fine democratic notion as open riding nominations whenever he sees fit to impose his will on his party?
The most blatant carry-away from Mr. Trudeau this week is the purely political one: the party is not in crisis, but it is in trouble. And it needed something big to get it started again. Democratic reform was their answer. Will it be believed?
20 Jun 2015-National Post-Rex Murphy
Trudeau’s Gambit
Can a man who ignores his own promise to hold open nominations credibly claim to be a great reformer?
Murphy: ‘The most blatant carry-away from Trudeau this week is the purely political one: the party is not in crisis, but it is in trouble.’
It may be stated as an axiom that the desire to reform Parliament and the democratic system that underwrites it is proportional to any given political party’s distance from achieving power.
Parties already in power bathe in the pleasure that they have mastered the arcane and often outdated rules by which they have achieved office. While in opposition they rail at the putative inequities of the electoral system, the closed or secret nature of cabinet government, or the “topdown” nature of modern day Prime Ministerial administration.
They almost certainly declaim at the deficiencies of Parliament itself, the ritual exchange of talking points and insults (these are not mutually exclusive) during Question Period, or the disgusting incivility of parliamentary exchange in general. Parties waiting for their chance at government take an almost pastoral view of politics: they see a sky unclouded by partisan interest, ministers who stand to give real information, uninflected by partisan impulse, when asked a question; they see a prime minister as an ideal leader, one formed of the sagacity of a Socrates mixed with the temperament of an Abraham Lincoln, a creature of the greatest wisdom married to the deepest morality. They see democracy and parliamentary debate as a sweet Disney-world, drained of all rancour, emptied of all anger and bluster, utterly uncontaminated by the messy, compromising, shallow and self-serving measures and halfmeasures that — in reality, and sadness — constitute the living reality of almost every democratic government that is or ever has been.
I might offer as a corollary to this axiom that the slimmer a party’s chances of winning power, the more extravagant the vision it will offer voters should it ever achieve it. I have no doubt, for example, that if the Green party could promise to eliminate global emissions in a week and install Al Gore as the head of a new world government in two — both dreams securely fastened to their sheer impossibility — it would.
To descend to plausible reality, we may look at Justin Trudeau’s new broad-ranging, 32-point reform package as a more contained example of opposition projection. Its themes of electoral reform, ministerial accountability, a refreshed parliament, and a prime minister bound to openness and answerability are — setting aside a few points that are little more than sloganeering — a plausible set of ideas, which, if introduced and faithfully adhered to, would work to the betterment of our democracy.
But they have to be tested on a number of grounds. The first and primary one is that of trust. Even should we agree on all of these proposals, how likely is it that this fair catalogue — so bright and shiny in the months before an election — would survive and find execution in legislation and practice, should Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals actually win next fall. How many of Mr. Trudeau’s mini-magna carta for Canadian democracy would survive his victory? What do voters know of Mr. Trudeau, actually know, that would rationally lead them to believe that he would be different from so many other opposition politicians before him, who promised the world and all its delights, while on the campaign trail – and if and once successful – shuddered into being just like every other politician, who promised and reneged.
The one reform over which, indeed, he has had control, and which he did commit himself to, was that of open nominations for his party now — while still in opposition. That has gone the way of all political flesh. Liberal nominations are still as much within the gift and whim of the leader as ever they were. So, why trust him on the bigger scheme?
A second test comes to motivation. And timing. For the better part of his tenure as leader, Mr. Trudeau, in his public appearances, has confined himself to buoyant meet and greets, harvesting his undeniable celebrity persona and the gift of his truly great name. On policy — to now — he has been as taciturn as the Sphinx. The theory from his advisers was it was best to hold fire, not to give the demonic Tories ammunition to attack him too early. Recent motions in the polls, however, particularly the surprising but substantial rise of Tom Mulcair and the NDP (perhaps aided by the miracle of NDP Alberta) has shaken the Liberals. Their own fall from 39 per cent to 23 per cent has been noted not just outside the party, but also within.
How to stop the slide has to have been the question of the last month or more. The embargo on policy had to go — smiles and handshakes were clearly not enough. Thus, this week, he made his move.
Voters therefore may look at the reform package from the point of view of what prompted it, as much as for its substance; and they would be justified in doing so. Does it appear as a consequence of the Liberal’s newfound fear that their party and their leader are in a real decline? That the original flash and favour they found with their leader has dimmed and that they must, quickly, come up with proposals large enough and of sufficient headline-commanding power to slow or still Tom Mulcair’s gradual emergence as a favourite? If voters so conclude, that this package is one of partisan and not democratic necessity, that reform as an idea is itself a vote-getting gambit, then they may dismiss the whole catalogue as just another manoeuvre in the always dismal and cynical game of politics.
What is done under necessity is not always what is in the heart. So there are two areas in which this latest and largest presentation has real challenges. First, will voters trust any comprehensive reform package from any party in opposition as anything more than they have heard long and often before?
Secondly, how much will they trust so large a package that came — relatively late — from a leader sinking in the polls, who up to this point was determined to shield his policy measures till such time as the writ was near dropping, and with an already established willingness to ignore his own prior declarations on such a fine democratic notion as open riding nominations whenever he sees fit to impose his will on his party?
The most blatant carry-away from Mr. Trudeau this week is the purely political one: the party is not in crisis, but it is in trouble. And it needed something big to get it started again. Democratic reform was their answer. Will it be believed?
nutgraf1
