By Eugene Sit
It’s now 6 weeks since this election began, and we still have 5 weeks to go. 5 more weeks under a barrage of ads, election signs, Facebook posts, and election-related news coverage. The estimated dollar cost of this election to the government (read: nation) is half a billion, never mind the amount spent by individual donors and third-party campaigners, or the hundreds of millions the incumbent government has spent in the last few years advertising its policies. Then there’s the fact that all of our news organizations are obliged to focus on this election for all of those 11 weeks, hounding us in turn to part with our time to give it our attention. On top of all of that, whether I turn on the TV or the YouTube, I now have to suffer the candidates delivering their messages in wholly insipid ways: Justin walking up an escalator, Tom smiling, Stephen carrying on the pretense that he’s a human being.
Truly, the economic and human cost is staggering.
What does this all accomplish? Whom does it serve? I’ll allow that a private donor’s contribution isn’t necessarily tied to public interest, but the taxpayer-funded portion certainly should be. And all this being the run-up to the election, the obvious answer is that it’s to educate the electorate so that they can make an informed decision come October 19.
I’d like to establish one thing, using that model of a democratic government from high school social studies as a point of departure. The election is an opportunity for the people of each electoral district to choose the representative most suitable to act in their stead at our national assembly, the House of Commons. Canada’s democracy has evolved such that we vote for national parties more than individuals, yet the mechanism of vote-by-riding persists. The issue of first-past-the-post and proportional voting, that’s a whole other jar of pickles, what I’d like to impress is that we are voting for people.
Whether that’s one person, or a whole party, it’s crucial to remember this fact while being bombarded with all the various shiny promises from politicians. We may, through our votes, give a strong mandate to certain policies, but we don’t actually vote to implement legislation. That’s up to our representatives whom we’re in the process of electing.
If it serves us, and serves us well, then this lavish circus will teach us who these parties and their candidates are.
A whole network of elements constituting that “who” will decide just how these politicians govern: character, experience, knowledge and ability, motivations, beliefs and ideology, and relationships with individuals, organizations, businesses, etc.
Are we getting that picture of who? If we content ourselves with the profiles that each respective party presents, or the caricatures made by rivals, certainly not. That’s simply salesmanship. Proposing legislation, as candidates are wont to do during elections, may give evidence of a capacity to find ways for a government act effectively, but that’s only one part of the picture. Those proposals shouldn’t be our obsession.
This election should be an opportunity for the various politicians to be put through the paces, to be made to demonstrate their capacity to act on our behalf as a nation. By that, I don’t mean briefly sitting down with a celebrity journalist giving polite questions while having a free platform on national television to present one’s appeal for votes.
Further debates are approaching, which could be an opportunity to see a real test of the leaders as they are thrown into verbal contest with one another. I hope we get a couple gems out of the debates, but on the whole I don’t expect to see the kind of mutual thrashing which would be truly gratifying. There might be some able cross-examination on display here, if the moderators enable it, however it is likely just going to be another chance for each to present the calculated message of why we are right and they are wrong.
My point is that if we take this to be a job interview (or review) before a nation, then it is imperative upon us, the employers, to set the tone of that interview. We shouldn’t passively allow others, usually the political candidates themselves, to tell the story. The best opportunity we’ve had to see a candidate thrown off their narrative is in the response to the Syrian refugee crisis, but it shouldn’t take a tragedy for us to get substance out of an election.
Here’s what I propose: There are plenty of questions we ought ask (accompanied with the expectation that they are truthfully and directly answered, and the willingness to expose candidates if they’re not) that would demonstrate the intention and ability to contribute to good government.
A few generic examples of questions for junior candidates, limited by my personal ignorance of political practices:
For incumbent MPs: How do you spend your time as a MP? Who do you spend your time with (other politicians, lobbyists, constituents, etc.)? Describe the demographics/politics of your constituency. What legislation have you voted for/against? Defend your position on that legislation.
For their challengers: What are the accomplishments and strengths of the incumbent, and where do you agree with him/her? What would you do differently from the incumbent? Describe the job of a MP and your position in your party. What position do you believe your constituency holds on issue X?
To get an appropriate level of scrutiny of the candidates, we need to ask and expect answers to closed questions which set a standard for their conduct, test their knowledge, and ask them to make choices. Answers to open questions which candidates can use to construct a self-serving narrative serve primarily to ease one’s doubts about investing a vote in any particular individual. Proof of competence through such a test is how we can become confident voters.
As one climbs the ladder of power, there’s a need for more scrutiny. Members of the cabinet and shadow cabinets should be challenged with difficult, even insoluble questions on their respective portfolios. Sometimes the best questions don’t have an answer. This is how we can learn about what our government does and set our expectations for what our next government will do.
At the pinnacle of that political ladder we have our various party leaders, several whom have a real shot at being our next prime minister. It follows that they deserve the greatest scrutiny; perhaps something like thorough and repeated cross-examination.
What we get is much, much less: A few questions, at his pleasure, a tame interview and a few prospectively tame debates, and a whole lot of money injected into advertising and reporting about what amounts to nothing more than hubris.
I had originally intended at this point to list some possible questions that would hypothetically raise the standard of political conversation, but apart from having a lengthy list of questions for Mr. Harper, I realized that I had only a brief list for Mr. Mulcair, and nothing much at all for Mr. Trudeau. Why?
Stephen Harper has been the head of government for the last 9 years, so it’s natural that there’s a lot more on the record that a dissatisfied citizen wishes to take him to task for. I certainly do feel there’s an opportunity to challenge characteristics of his government, such as its huge advertising projects, its weakening of access to information, the restrictions on scientists’ communications, and monitoring of peaceful political activists.
Regarding Harper’s opponents, Mulcair is easier to target because his promises to abolish the senate and keep a balanced budget aren’t very tenable. Trudeau’s escaped my attention because he’s avoided saying anything particularly bold; some might call this pragmatic, others might read that he just lacks conviction. Not having led the country or established a position does not grant exemption from scrutiny.
My argument is that the vapidity of it all has left myself and everyone else waiting for some real clue as to how these people will act should we allow them to form government. There are intelligent people whose full-time job it is to critique the politics and affairs of our nation, what platform do they have right now? Perhaps some write columns or appear on talk shows, where their purpose is to get readers and viewers.
The candidates shouldn’t be the only ones on the national stage; returning to the interview analogy, there should also be a place for those who can challenge the candidates on what they’ve done, on what they claim they’ll do, to develop an exhaustive record on what Canadians should expect when they vote X vs. Y.
It’s not enough to just let the politicians debate each other, because they’re there to score political points, not set an intelligent standard for discussion. I also believe that it’s in their mutual interest not to broach the sort of subjects that offer no easy answer, but which merit attention.
I’m appealing for this because I want a higher standard for our politics, not because I want the politicians to be made to look bad (although when they lie or mislead, it’s only just that they be exposed). There’s a real trend in there being less access to party leaders as well as ordinary MPs; the consequence is less accountability. It’s been pointed out that due to the ascendance of social media, we’re much more likely to catch when politicians misspeak, which has made our political parties less comfortable with letting them speak at all. If that lays part of the blame at our feet, for magnifying and exaggerating any exposed defect in these political leaders, who are still human after all, then it gives us some of the power to contribute to a solution.
After all my complaints about our dearth of opportunities to catch the candidates falling off their narrative, I must awkwardly conclude that we should allay judgment when they get exposed for secondary faults (Someone like Jerry Bance, of course, fundamentally lacks integrity and deserves what he got). More than that, we should actively celebrate what honesty and courage appears, not just when a politician says something we agree with, but when they reveal a position they know to be divisive.
It’s an idealistic position I’m offering, not because the ideal is necessarily achievable, but because little victories will nudge the dialogue to a better position.
There’s the debate on the economy tomorrow, and some of you may heard that Elizabeth May intends to use Twitter to participate, even though she hasn’t been invited. While I don’t have the intention to vote Green this year (it’s too tight of a race, but maybe I’ll eat my words later), I really do welcome the opportunity here to demand more open and transparent platforms for conversation, and I’ll follow her while watching the other leaders. If we do have an interest in the politics of our nations, we should use the tools we have to connect.
Should the politicians from our main parties shun engagement, it simply creates a vacancy for others to step in and speak up.
VanProver 