Marking 20 years
of bold journalism,
reader supported.
Opinion
Politics
Elections

Politicians and the Mirage of Popularity

They court your love, then seek to please unelected power brokers.

Rafe Mair 21 Sep 2009TheTyee.ca

Rafe Mair writes a Monday column for The Tyee. Read previous columns by Rafe Mair here. He also acts as a spokesperson for the Save Our Rivers Society.

image atom
One cuddly cat, our Prime Minister.

I took a whirlwind trip to Toronto a week ago and, as always, airplane rides are for contemplation and I began to wonder a wonder. Why do we like some politicians and detest others?

And how come we tolerate a system where the leader's wishes trump parliamentary power?

Those who belong to one team or another tend to extend the hand of forgiveness to their leaders' peccadilloes, especially when they're in government. When a government goes badly wrong though, as Glen Clark's did, love can shift to hate overnight. The New Democrats are especially cruel to their fallen angels -- as Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh can no doubt attest.

Why, for example, do I dislike the prime minister, have a gut feeling of negativity towards Michael Ignatieff, think Jack what's-his-name from the NDP is okay, and rather like Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc?

And why should liking or disliking a leader matter?

Regarding Harper, maybe it's because he was always late for my talk show, even though he knew that a guestless host closely resembles a fish flopping around in the bottom of the boat.

I don't care for Ignatieff because he's shown a massive disinterest in British Columbia and that's fatal.

Jack what's-his-name is a decent sort of bloke and his only real failing is that he acts as if he were important.

I like Duceppe because he's given me a standing invitation to go with him to a Habs game next time I'm in Montreal. He does an excellent job of keeping the country together by reason of being an official separatist. As long as he and the Bloc exist, Quebeckers can vote BQ to protest, secure in the knowledge that the bribes will continue -- thus they can safely go about their business of being Canadians without loving Canada.

Who really runs the show

Our "fuehrer prinzip" reflects a system where all power reposes in the prime minister -- who acts, not on the advice of MP's, but unelected power brokers. We've come to look upon our elections as being "three leaders plus Duceppe," and vote accordingly. I know that point will bring out the cry "I vote for the person, not the party."

To which I must reply, "Obviously you have no idea how the system works and you should confine your political action to electing directors of your golf club where the candidate's opinion may have some bearing on how the place is run."

The national media understand this leader-worship and tell us what the leader will do, not what the party stands for. If you vote for the man or woman and not the party, your choice is about as important as your preference in ice cream flavours.

An example: Canada's best journalists -- an oxymoron if ever there was one -- make the leaders' debates look like a session of a youth parliament where only proper questions are asked and decorum outscores debate every time.

Think about it. When was the last time an issue from B.C. was put to the leaders during the debates? When was the question of Pacific Fisheries ever asked, or the question of forestry? The plain fact is that British Columbia is as important to our political leaders as the Scilly Isles are to London. Leaders don't give a damn about B.C. because they don't have to.

A land without issues?

When our party leaders debate, there are few philosophical divides over issues any more. For the most part, all leaders respond to issues with "me too, but I'd do it this way, not that way."

There isn't a large "C" conservative party in the land, except that hideous lot running things in Victoria. There certainly isn't a socialist party, and the Liberal philosophy has always been nice and simple -- do what it takes to get elected, then stay elected.

On the issue of national unity, nothing has changed in my lifetime. Quebec has fits of separatism like recurring bouts of poison ivy, but gets goodies like the child threatening to run away gets his popsicle. Every election we're told how important the "the West" is -- an indication that Central Canadians refuse to understand that there are three very distinct regions in Western Canada, which only unite when Ottawa power brokers piss them all off at once.

The winning formula never changes. Get your votes in Ontario and Quebec and you'll win. It would be different if we had some sort of proportional representation where MPs have some power. But that won't happen unless and until electoral reform becomes an issue of the people, not just university professors.

There's a curious dichotomy playing out in this country at present. We're all told that we don't want or need yet another election. Yet we're also told -- and believe -- that minority governments are terrible, so we must avoid all forms of proportional representation! Which is it to be, a five-year dictatorship by a leader who has parliament in his pocket or a prime minister whose control of the purse and policy depends upon parliamentary consent?

There are, of course, other options -- such as the American "checks and balances" system where the executive, elective and juridical branches check each other's power. It's the best system I know of -- on paper. The perfect becomes imperfect because U.S. politicians can't stanch the flow of money from interest groups seeking influence. But rather than that being the fault of the system, blame the lack of will to use that system appropriately. The U.S. system -- endorsed by no less an authority than constitutional expert Dr. Edward (Ted) McWhinney -- has no buzz in Canada where those who profit from the system have no incentive to change it. We prefer the Canadian way -- bitch over our beer, only rousing ourselves to get another.

Without a will to reform, there's no way we'll have it.

Addendum: notes on the fish farm debate

Two respondents to this recent column and this one asked why the use of SLICE in fish farms protected the pink salmon yet not the sockeye. The answer is simple. The SLICE was used by specific farms for specific runs for a short time span when the Broughton Archipelago pinks went by. Sockeye migrate at a different time from a different river, and as a result they had no such protection.

Second, my colleague Damien Gillis at Save Our Rivers, is just back from documenting environmental and socio-economic wreckage from the Chilean farmed fish collapse. He writes:

"And so it was to my horror that I read Mary Ellen Walling's [spokesperson for B.C. fish farmers] callous take on the Chilean crisis I had just witnessed. Walling [said]: 'Prices are up 10 to 15 per cent over the past six months because of the lack of product in the marketplace... It's good for the B.C. industry because we've got good, solid prices moving forward... There's a significant lack of Chilean product in the U.S. market. It's a great opportunity for B.C. salmon farmers.'"

That's rather like a spokesman for undertakers praising Hurricane Katrina for being good for business! Nice guys, these fish farmers!  [Tyee]

Read more: Politics, Elections

  • Share:

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion.
*Please note The Tyee is not a forum for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, denying its existence or minimizing its risk to public health.

Do:

  • Be thoughtful about how your words may affect the communities you are addressing. Language matters
  • Challenge arguments, not commenters
  • Flag trolls and guideline violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity, learn from differences of opinion
  • Verify facts, debunk rumours, point out logical fallacies
  • Add context and background
  • Note typos and reporting blind spots
  • Stay on topic

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language
  • Ridicule, misgender, bully, threaten, name call, troll or wish harm on others
  • Personally attack authors or contributors
  • Spread misinformation or perpetuate conspiracies
  • Libel, defame or publish falsehoods
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities
  • Post links without providing context

LATEST STORIES

The Barometer

Do You Think Naheed Nenshi Will Win the Alberta NDP Leadership Race?

Take this week's poll