14 October 2008
10 Oct
Whatever the result on Tuesday, this election continues the downward spiral of political discourse in Canada. Gone are the days of big ideas like Medicare, Just Society and Free Trade, where debate raged on the merits of the programs, and criticism of leaders was based on their actions, not their personality, physical quirks or “spin”character assassination. While in the past politicians may have disagreed on policy, and even disliked each other, they at least appeared to respect each other enough to be civil in public and when conducting the business of government. Partisanship is one thing, vitriol quite another.
Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively. Its no longer business, its personal. Why has this happened and what are the consequences?
We have not only imported negative campaigning from the US, but have taken to focusing on “the leader”. Except we are not electing a president, we are electing a party/team to run a government. No question the leader is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. So we hear too much about Harper, Dion, Layton and May, which supports an environment for personal attacks, than we do about party policies and teams (Only the Liberals tried this for a short time when things were not going well). Combined with negative campaigning, where the focus is simply to attack your opponent as opposed to proposing solutions of your own, emotion is trumping reason, and the soundbite is trumping real information.
The consequences are 1) party leaders who have been denigrated to such an extent that all suffer from a lack of wide spread public respect and trust. As a result, many self-respecting individuals with ability decline to seek public office 2) voter apathy with 35% of the population not voting (although an unrepresentative electoral system also hurts)      3) 40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the governing of Canada by supporting the Bloc whose primary goal is to breakup the country 4) a media focused on the horserace (who is winning or losing) and trying to “even things out” to keep the race going, instead of critically evaluating and communicating party policies to the public. This leads to soundbites and spin, as opposed to ideas.
The only way to stop this negativity is for voters to demand better. We need to encourage positive behavior from all participants (including the media) and challenge them when they do not meet our expectations and do their job. And I mean challenge all of them, those we support as well as those we don’t. The sooner we return civility and respect to our politics, the sooner we focus on ideas and not personalities, the better our country will be in the end.

Conservative Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party
Christian Heritage
Progressive Canadian
Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party
Canadian Action Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
First Peoples Party
Western Block Party
Animal Alliance Party
neorhino.ca
4 Responses for "The decline of Canadian politics"
“Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively.”
You are correct, not only is there no respect for the oposing leaders and or MPs by some partys and individuals but no respect for our parlimentry and electoral rules and conventions. We must indeed reward those who show their willingness to embrace and enhance our parlimentry demorcracy. It should have been a major part of the debatesa / platforms in recent weeks but so far as I can see only one leader has even made referance to future cooperation and better “behaviour” in the house. I do hope that that leader and her party get some seats in parliment this time and show the others how out representitives SHOULD behave!
Hear hear.
Unfortunately, politicians are like dogs. Treat a behaviour with a rolled up newspaper and they’ll stop. Give them a treat and they’ll do it again. As much as Canadians say they are disgusted with the bad behaviour of politicians, every election we usually give the worst ones the big treat of reelection.
Let’s face it: Canadians are hypocrites. We crow to the whole world that we’re more polite, more nice than anybody else. But given the choice between a bully and a nice guy we’ll vote for the bully every time.
It’s odd, but I don’t think the problem is the negativity. Yes, the Conservatives have definitely imported the US style of campaigning and political strategy. But negativity is not a US invention, we have out own way of it, and always have. In the course of my studies, I’ve researched elections from many decades past, and even back as far as the 1920’s one saw the most underhanded and awful tactics used.
What makes me mad about thw “Americanization” of our elections is how it’s become so superficial, especially in terms of how the media covers it. I do not care if the politicians show open contempt for each other – in fact, I wish they would be open about it, and just say “yes, I hate the guy and everything he stands for”. At least that’s honest – if I considered someone an enemy, I would not treat them with much respect.
But I hate that they treat the public like idiots, twisting what is said into pretzels or worse, making leaps of logic that are just bizarre or inventing things that are plainly contradicted by factual reality.
The media are very to blame in this too – they don’t challenge these outright lies and say “hey, that’s outright lies”. The Americanization we see there is basically in the adoption of stupid coverage practices that serve no purpose. For example, after debates, or on panel shows, we see a spin doctor from each party come out and say … guess! Yup, each one just repeats the party spin, says their leader is a brilliant angel on their way to victory and their opponents are simultaneously stupid, devilish, and losing in every possible way. It’s garbage, and why do we need to see it? To be fair? No – fair would be not showing it at all. To be balanced? Well balance is not a virtue if it just involves pointless displays of redundancy by all parties involved.
If people are upset at all politicians, it’s because under these conditions, they don’t really get to take a real stand and say “I believe in X, take me or leave me”, without being penalized for it in this “gotcha” environment. And because the treatment of issues is so shallow, people get put off from even paying attention to politics, so that when election time comes, you’d be lucky to find voters who can identify what the givernment has or hasn’t done or which parties stand for what. No wonder they don’t vote – it seems like a fight between immature twits and backstabbers, over issues that few of the voters even comprehend.
So, maybe you could say I’m in favour of deeper, more meaningful political warfare.
“Gone are the days of big ideas like medicare”…
No Big Ideas? Wouldn’t Green Shift qualify as somewhat of a big idea? Of course it does. The problem as you rightly describe it is the race to the lowest common denominator in both advertising and debate.
Canadians however, are showing some amazing focus however. It seems the country is going to reward a party who stayed the course with the right policy for the times. Voters have seen the worst in leadership, and on Tuesday will not be swayed by the background noise being created by Mr. Harper, focusing their ballots instead on the green shift as a big national opportunity.
As far as voter apathy is concerned while I agree that the slime being thrown around has a role to play in discouraging voter engagement, lets be a little more realistic about real voter apathy problems during this particular election.
The Bloc has been around for a long time. They didn’t grow and thrive because of anything that would be a surprise to most in this country. Saying that “40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the government of Canada” is the direct result of the current low level of political discourse is misleading.
You didn’t mention the low turnout on the part of students and youth, who are primarily interested in the environment. Throughout this campaign they have been told that its all about the economy by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. Is it any wonder that young voters get discouraged? They are so quickly dismissed by the know it all pundits who are fully bought into the Conservative (what would a Republican do?) myopia? No wonder that Mr. Dion, Ms. May and even Mr. Duceppe appeal to those who need action on the environmental challenges so completely stifled by the focus on the “crisis in the economy”.
If you meant that gone are the days of big ideas, on the part of the governing party, then yes that would be correct. Clearly in waiting until the end of the campaign to introduce a platform, the Conservatives did fail to present a big idea. However, there is one on the table…Green Shift.
Leave a reply below or start a thread in the discussion forums
Note: Sometimes people try to portray more support for their candidate or their perspective in the comments section by posing as different people. If you attempt to do this, we will delete all of your comments.Update: despite the above warning, people are attempting to use multiple aliases, so we are now moderating all comments to check against possible abuses. We apologize for this inconvenience, however we will work to get comments posted as soon as possible.