rabble.ca Canadian federal election blog

Thinking big or acting small

By Erika Shaker, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

For me, one of the most telling moments of the 2004 election came during the leader’s debates when Stephen Harper asked Gilles Duceppe why he continued to run as leader of the Bloc.

“You’ll never have power,” he explained. Duceppe was incredulous. Is that what you think democracy is all about: power? he asked. It’s about representing the people who vote for you, regardless of the outcome, he responded. Are you saying your years in Opposition mean nothing?

I’m paraphrasing. But this exchange illustrates fundamentally different views of democracy. A healthy democracy contains mechanisms that necessarily limit absolute power, thereby helping to create and ensure a more democratic society.

Free elections are not the sole determinant of a democratic society. It also has to do with the ability of citizens, regardless of location, or socio-economic status, or myriad of other factors, to participate in all aspects of that society.

Do they have equal access to high quality, publicly accountable public services like education and health care? The justice system? Elected representatives? Government institutions? If their rights have been trampled, are there mechanisms in place that allow for redress?

So let’s take stock of what the Harper Conservatives have done since being elected—as a minority government.

They questioned the credibility (Linda Keen, Marc Raynard) and then fired (Adrian Measner, Linda Keen) civil servants who prioritized their legal mandate and public responsibility over demands from the PMO.

They eliminated a program that helped guarantee marginalized organizations and individuals equal access to the justice system (Court Challenges Program).

They sued Elections Canada when it questioned whether their party violated campaign spending laws (“In-and-Out” scheme). They provided their MPs with a step-by-step guide to ensure parliamentary dysfunction.

And they severely restricted the media’s and the public’s access to information (eliminating the national Co-ordination of Access to Information Requests System).

And that’s just for starters.

Mr. Harper has maintained that he has set “a tone.” He’s right. Ryan Sparrow only revealed it. This is a government of political strategy and character assassination. A government for whom robust democracy is an inconvenience because it gets in the way of exercising power without having to worry about legislative checks and balances, healthy media analysis, or even public scrutiny.

So is this the government we deserve? I certainly hope not. I think we deserve more than this small-minded approach that sees every different point of view not as a position to be considered but rather as an affront that must be eradicated.

I think we can and should expect more, particularly when there’s so much at stake. We need a comprehensive plan to address the major issues of our time: inequality, a hugely unpopular and costly war, environmental degradation, crumbling infrastructure, growing personal debt, Canada-U.S. relations and resource dependence in an era of globalization.

At such a pivotal time in our political history, I think we can demand that our elected representatives think big, rather than act small.