So you've served your country. So what?

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an interesting piece from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070222.wmacgregor22/BNStory/National

So you've served your country. So what?
Four ex-leaders tell Roy MacGregor about the changing, often fickle, nature of politics in Canada

ROY MacGREGOR
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

TORONTO — The job title remains the same.

Prime Minister of Canada — first held by Sir John A. Macdonald and by only 21 others since, right up to today's Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper.

But the job is hardly the same.

Nor, it increasingly appears, is this complicated country that can sometimes make the Rubik's Cube look like a crib toy.

“The Next Great Prime Minister,” announces the banner at the John Street entrance to the CBC's Toronto headquarters.

It is a promo for a television show. But there is reality TV — and then there is reality.

Four of those 22 remarkable Canadians gathered here on Monday evening to partake in a new show that the CBC will air on March 18. Before the taping, Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin, Kim Campbell and Joe Clark sat down with The Globe to talk about getting young Canadians involved in the political process.

They did indeed discuss this critical matter, but on their own they took the conversation off in a long, at times disturbing, discussion of the realities of engaging an increasingly disengaged citizenry, as well as the reality each of them has faced in a country that essentially turns its back on used leaders.

In a time of election fever — a provincial election just called in Quebec, a federal election seemingly on the brink — they spoke, at times in sorrow, of a political landscape that has changed so dramatically in recent years that, Mr. Clark believes, “we might be working on models that don't apply to this day and age.”

All four had much to say on what has gone wrong and what needs to go right — yet all are equally convinced the country has no ear to lend them.

“It is almost,” says Mr. Clark, “as if you are being penalized for your service.”

Past leadership might be revered in other societies, Ms. Campbell believes, but “it's not honoured in this country.”

“Just take a look at what happens to a politician who loses a seat in this country,” adds Mr. Martin.

“Absolutely,” agrees Mr. Mulroney. “Take a look at how the British and the Americans treat their retired politicians. Here they are just put off in a corner and forgotten.

“... In Canada, if you lose anything, you become a pariah.”

These four leaders, all successful at a variety of levels over the years, feel that today's leadership, whether actively running for office or just thinking of running, is up against a virtual impossibility.

There is, says Ms. Campbell, “conventional unwisdom” that government is no longer important to people's lives, that so much of what is happening is out of the control of governments.

Mr. Clark believes there are certain issues where a direct connect is still possible between politicians and the people, but such occasions are increasingly rare.

In his own life, the man who was prime minister of Canada from mid-1979 to early 1980 says, there were two federal elections — John Diefenbaker in 1958, Pierre Trudeau in 1968 — that “swept people in” to the political process. They got excited about politics, inspired by leadership.

“Ours in '84 did not,” he adds, looking across at a nodding Mr. Mulroney, the prime minister who came to power that election and stayed for nearly a decade. “It got a bigger voter turnout, but I don't think as many lives were changed as in those two earlier elections.”

There is, Mr. Clark believes, no longer the same sense of national party that existed in the heydays of Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives and Trudeau's Liberals.

What has turned so many people off, the former prime ministers believe, is the new culture of Canadian politics as it has been played out now for nearly a generation. Politicians have lost so much of the public's trust and respect that they are regularly bunched with used-car salesmen in polls.

“Political parties,” says Ms. Campbell, “have become anathema. Partisanship,” she says, “is a good thing. It provokes debate. It's when partisanship runs amok, when people say things they don't mean or believe, where it becomes an excessive force.”

There was a time, Mr. Clark adds, where the general “assumption was that government was good. Now, almost the opposite applies. If a government proposes something, that generates suspicion about it. That's not a generational factor; that's a broad phenomenon. It's societal.”

Today's young people, Mr. Clark says, “have no personal recollection of a time when the benefit of the doubt was given to the government of the day.”

All four say they have seen a widespread trend develop in the country that involves “denigrating the whole political process.”

Ms. Campbell, who in 1993 briefly served as Canada's first female prime minister, believes that the Reform movement began an anti-politician sentiment that has carried on long after Reform became Alliance and, ultimately, a partner in the governing Conservatives.

“What we have had in Canada,” Ms. Campbell believes, “is a whole political movement ... that came to office basically denigrating the whole political process ... And then, of course, they get to Ottawa and they find out that, in fact, it's very hard to be a member of Parliament. It's hard on your family, particularly if you're from the West — and Joe and I can both tell you it's different if you're not from that power triangle of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It's a huge sacrifice.”

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the decision to televise the proceedings of the House of Commons. Television has had a profound effect on both political behaviour and, most significantly, public perception of how politics is done in this country.

“Television in the House of Commons has transformed politics,” says Mr. Mulroney. “There's no going back. But it has made for the easy headline, the cheap shot. A young man or woman with a serious interest in policy is not getting much in terms of publicity.”

All four ex-leaders worry about this increasing disconnect between government and governed.

“The culture has changed,” says Mr. Clark. “And we grew up in a culture before the change.”

He says the world has shifted from a general “assumption that government was good” to an assumption that all politicians are merely “opportunistic.” This, he says, “is a bad phenomenon.

“Clearly, the organization of government, of Parliament, leaves less and less latitude, less and less capacity to make much of a difference.”

Ms. Campbell adds: “I think people have to feel that what they're doing makes a difference — that they have an impact.”

“This idea that we can change things,” says Mr. Martin, “is absolutely crucial.” Show that, he argues, and young Canadians will want to be part of the political process.

And as for former leaders, even in retirement, they say they'd like to be part of it, too.

“Take us right out of the picture on this discussion,” says Mr. Mulroney. Other countries, he says, “try and harness the talents” of their former leaders. “There's none of that here,” he says.

“What we do,” he adds, “is amputate the capacity of our former leaders to do something.” What he would like to see is for Parliament to consider this situation.

“I hope,” he says, “they would reflect upon this for the future — I want to be clear it doesn't apply to any of us — so that they can tap into this great resource of people who have served.”

Two things caught my eye – two whinges, if you like, which resonate with me:

“It is almost,” says Mr. Clark, “as if you are being penalized for your service.” ... Past leadership might be revered in other societies, Ms. Campbell believes, but “it's not honoured in this country.” ... “Just take a look at what happens to a politician who loses a seat in this country,” adds Mr. Martin ... “Absolutely,” agrees Mr. Mulroney. “Take a look at how the British and the Americans treat their retired politicians. Here they are just put off in a corner and forgotten. “... In Canada, if you lose anything, you become a pariah.”

There is, I believe, a mean, vindictive streak in Canadians, one which runs right through our major defining characteristics: greed and envy - greed for ‘free’ Medicare and government pogey and envy of the USA; we want everything they have but we don’t want to pay for it, we want the free ride and soft landing of the nanny state.

It is, at best, inefficient to throw aside politicians, even flawed ones like Mr. Martin.  Contrast our treatment and use of Mr. Mulroney with how the US used Mr. Nixon.  The Washington establishment was fully aware of the deep flaws in Mr. Nixon’s character so they didn’t ask him to chart a new moral course for America.  Rather, being conscious of his dept of knowledge and clear vision on foreign policy, they – successive Republican and Democratic administrations – sought his counsel in his area of expertise.  And he gave it, mostly quietly and privately but, as the years went by, increasingly publicly – as befits such advice in a free and open society.

Ms. Campbell, who in 1993 briefly served as Canada's first female prime minister, believes that the Reform movement began an anti-politician sentiment that has carried on long after Reform became Alliance and, ultimately, a partner in the governing Conservatives ... “What we have had in Canada,” Ms. Campbell believes, “is a whole political movement ... that came to office basically denigrating the whole political process ... And then, of course, they get to Ottawa and they find out that, in fact, it's very hard to be a member of Parliament. It's hard on your family, particularly if you're from the West — and Joe and I can both tell you it's different if you're not from that power triangle of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.”

I remember when Preston Manning promised that if we elected him and his colleagues they would “do politics differently.”  Like many, many Canadians I was sick and tired of the Rat Pack and I had enough of Sheila Copps jumping over tables in committee room and Liberal senators ‘playing’ kazoos in order to disrupt the business of a parliament that might enact legislation of which they disapproved.  Ottawa was a circus, a bad circus.  Manning could not deliver.  Canadians like the circus – bread and circuses is, indeed, still a good political strategy in Canada.  We are a dreadfully immature society – becoming less and less mature and responsible with each generation; we are fully enmeshed in our culture of entitlement.

----------

This is my 2,000th post.  I need to spend more of what little is left of my life at someting other than Army.ca! 

 

[observor 69]

Congratulations Mr. Campbell.

As you might have noticed I don't always agree with your viewpoint but I enjoy the debate, and often come away having learned something. 

May we have the pleasure of reading another 2000.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canadians like the circus – bread and circuses is, indeed, still a good political strategy in Canada.

Edward, I am not sure that it is worth bemoaning what appears to be the natural state of humanity.....As you are well aware, that phrase was coined when it was the Circus Maximus the politicians were talking about.

I love history. I love it because it proves that people don't change and yet we survive and prosper.  My two favourite anecdotes of history are a 4500 year old clay tablet found in Mesopotamia that on translation turned out to be a dunning letter to a debtor for non-payment on a disputed shipment of cattle and a "letter" found at Hadrian's wall impressed on a wax tablet that missed the post.  In it the soldier was saying thanks for the last parcel, he missed the sun and please send more wool underwear.  That one was only about 1900 years old. 

The priorities in life beer, bread, women (or other preferred companions) and a regular pay check.......and warm underwear.

I understand working to change living conditions, but I don't understand those amongst our politicians, teachers etc that really think they can improve people.  Maybe if they stuck to working in the material world, rather than the metaphysical, our politicians might find themselves more appreciated after their political death.

And Edward, congratulations on hitting 2000.  Like Baden Guy I am looking forward to 2000 more.

Cheers, Chris.