The Government, the Opposition and the Media

[Edward Campbell]

Every so often, like a clock that is right twice a day, even the Red Star is bound to find itself on the side of the angels, as it does in this column (not reflective of the paper’s editorial position) reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) pf the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star web site:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/764804--persichilli-federal-opposition-is-missing-in-action

Persichilli: Federal opposition is missing in action

Published On Sun Feb 14 2010

By Angelo Persichilli
Political Columnist

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is not so much in the way the governments behave, but in the capacity of their opposition to offer an alternative and of the media to expose any wrongdoing by either.

Problems arise when the people are offered no alternatives, either because a tyrant suppresses the opposition or because a democratic opposition is unable to create one. And the latter situation is exactly where Canada is at the present time.

If we take the federal opposition seriously when it says say the government is not doing a good job, the logical course of action would be to offer Canadians an alternative and go to the polls. Unfortunately, for the past four years, while they have accused the government of not fulfilling its duties, the opposition parties have failed to fulfill theirs.

We can blame the government for the high unemployment rate, the deficit and the war in Afghanistan, but can we blame the government for the opposition's shortcomings?

The sharp criticisms from the opposition are even more absurd when we know that they are facing a minority government, meaning they don't have to wait four years to bring it down. Yet, time and again, they have chosen not to. They have a bone right in front of them, yet do little else but bark at it because they are afraid to pick it up.

How can they blame the government for abusing democracy when democracy is in their hands? How is the government to blame if the opposition is afraid to use it?

Of course, the government's decision to prorogue the House is wrong for many reasons of both form and substance. But one can't help but ask: What would the opposition do with an open House anyway? Keep blasting the government without voting it down?

At this point, we have to look at the role of the media as well. A free and well informed news media is a vital component of a healthy democracy, but that's not the end of the story. Writing against a dictatorial government requires courage. Writing against a democratic government requires responsibility. In a dictatorship, the future of the nation is on the shoulders of the opposition. In a democracy, the weight of the nation is on the government. In a dictatorship, opposition leaders risk their lives. In a democracy, they only try to get back into power by making promises they cannot keep and making life hard for every government.

Some believe the news media is the opposition. That might be true in a country where the opposition has been erased by tyrants.

Some people perceive the media to be free and journalists courageous only when they write against governments. Well, personally, I also feel free when I write against the opposition and, if I want to feel courageous, I'll move to Iran, North Korea or China.

In a democratic country like Canada, there is an official opposition that can freely do its job. If it is not able to defeat a minority government, the problem is not the government, it's the opposition.

Governments deserve criticism when it's due, but they also deserve support, especially in difficult times like now when they are engaged in a massive fight against a global economic crisis.

I believe that the federal Conservative government could do better but, considering the difficult times we are now in, I believe it's doing a pretty good job. I guess, according to some, this makes me a Conservative. But, then again, I feel the same way about the Liberal government of Ontario, and I don't agree with the opportunist Conservative opposition at Queen's Park. And this, according to the same logic, makes me a Liberal. Oh well ...

Angelo Persichilli is the political editor of Corriere Canadese. His column appears Sunday.

Angelo Persichilli is right on both counts:

1. The national political opposition, the Liberals, especially, but also the BQ and the NDP are irresponsible, conniving cowards; and

2. The media is not the political opposition.

The political opposition is irresponsible because, if it really believes the government of the day is bad for Canada then it has the means, right now, to turn it out. The political opposition is cowardly because the each party knows it will, likely, fare worse and would, certainly, do no better than the Conservatives, today, if they force their way into power – they are afraid to be elected, even those who might win. The political opposition is conniving because the three parliamentary opposition parties  cooperate, secretly, to prevent the election of a new, ‘better’ government which each claims is necessary.

The media is not a force for good or some ‘sacred’ mechanism to hold the government accountable. It is, or tries to be a profit making sector (even the CBC wants to make money) which needs to provide sizzle (news) in order to sell its real product, the steak, the advertizing. It is good and fair for media outlets, individual newspapers, radio or TV stations, magazines and chains, networks and conglomerates to have editorial positions, as the Toronto Star does, and those positions can and should be reflected in the editorial and opinion pages. News should be reported as factual information – something the self-important CBC and Globe and Mail too often forget.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

One thing I have always wondered is [and yes, it's very simplistic, but isn't the average Canadian's knowledge about politics?] would a name change help out the scenario?

The word  'opposition', to a lot of folks, means just that,  'opponent, enemy, opposite', and that gives an impression that cooperation between the two [3] parties is to be avoided. I long for the day when SOMEONE in any opposition party stands up and says 'Well done".


..and for those who yell "tradition", well I've never been a traditionalist.

 

[40below]

One thing I have always wondered is [and yes, it's very simplistic, but isn't the average Canadian's knowledge about politics?] would a name change help out the scenario?

The word  'opposition', to a lot of folks, means just that,  'opponent, enemy, opposite', and that gives an impression that cooperation between the two [3] parties is to be avoided. I long for the day when SOMEONE in any opposition party stands up and says 'Well done".


..and for those who yell "tradition", well I've never been a traditionalist.

Well, you could always move to the Nunavut or the NWT, where there are no political parties, no party in power and no opposition and government operates entirely on consensus, but having lived there, I have to note that it doesn't work any better than those traditional forms.

 

[Otis]

The word  'opposition', to a lot of folks, means just that,  'opponent, enemy, opposite', and that gives an impression that cooperation between the two [3] parties is to be avoided. I long for the day when SOMEONE in any opposition party stands up and says 'Well done".

I brought this up at a "town hall like" meeting before one of the past elections.

A member of a party that shall-remain-nameless but I can say with absolute certainty will NEVER form the government of Canada was trying to convince us to vote for his party. I asked why we should vote for them and he told me it was because he and his party supported the Military.

My response was this, "Yes, but as the non-ruling party, anything you suggest, no matter how good the idea, will be voted down due to our confrontational form of democracy. And you can't stand there and tell me with a straight face that anything the ruling party proposes will be supported by your party, no matter how much you support the military. So why should anyone vote for you instead of voting for someone who at least has a chance of ruling Parliament and putting forth ideas to support us"

Of course, all of this was long before the minority governments we've had for the last while.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Michael Ignatieff is, more of less officially, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The title came into use early in the 19th century, almost coincident with the creation of official political parties, to signify that one could oppose His Majesty's government while still be wholly loyal to His Majesty, the head-of-state. It is an important idea which transplanted, easily, to America, too. It became crucial when John Adams was replaced, peacefully, by his political foe Thomas Jeffereson.

The primary duty of the opposition is to oppose and, by so doing, to point out flaws in the government's programmes.

It would be nice if the opposition could offer constructive alternatives but, in principle, informing the debate by offering criticism is enough. The Liberals and NDP (and even the BQ) are doing, just, the bare minimum that parliamentary democracy requires - the oppose. But, if they actually believe that they, either party, can offer a better government than Harper's Conservatives can then they must force a general election (by securing BQ support for a no-confidence motion) and 'throw the rascals out.'

My assessment is that neither party believes it can do any better, in electoral terms, than a minority, and the Liberals are unwilling to try. The Liberals need to tear Harper down and then turn on the NDP if they want to secure a majority. But it's not clear to me, given the dearth of policy ideas from the Liberals, why we, anyone, would want them to form a government - except that Iggy Iffy Icarus is might be less of an SOB than Harper.