Video: Guergis v. Harper heads to court - The Globe and Mail

Yet another example of really bad reporting:

Video: Guergis v. Harper heads to court - The Globe and Mail:

At one point the anchor asks the report "just between us, is this going to get juicy?" By which, he meant, are we doing to hear about backroom conversations?

There is an important story here and the story is about how the Harper Conservatives have gone about politically organizing a new "governing party" (aka, historic bloc). A responsible journalist, for instance, could explore the types of politics that functioned in the first decade of the twenty-first century to put together a political machine that could take and hold power. What does it entail, for instance, in terms of "dirty tricks?" What does it entail in terms of PR? Who is the CPC willing to sacrifice and why on their road to electoral victory?

We already know a big part of this story. We know, for instance, that governing coalitions are forged through a variety of means, one of which is only tangentially democracy. We know -- and the long run of the Liberal Party in power demonstrated this -- that victory went to the largest minority; not the majority. We know (and knew) that not all constituents are created equal (political parties focus on some voters -- middle class, university educated, say -- and ignore others -- say, youth or regions where their base support is limited). We know that governments -- despite their rhetoric -- do not govern in the interests of "all Canadians" but that governing in the national interest usually means specific things (such as, for the CPC, the transfer of resources from the poor -- via cuts to the welfare state -- to the military) that reflect specific visions of the country and its future.

What this trial might show us is that governing is not about a soap opera. It is not about "juicy" details in the manner of a daytime drama, but about how a party functions under the light of public scrutiny: who is expendable and why? And, we might learn how they will defend themselves from attacks from within their own ranks. What prompts those attacks (Guergis is, by all accounts, a loyal conservative)? Harper's defence, for instance, is really interesting if teamed with the drama going on regarding voting irregularities in a variety of riding in Canada and the arguments before the supreme court.

In effect, the CPC has argued that the rule of law is not all that important. An election was held and this is the "people speaking"  and whether or not the people spoke or it was rigged does not seem to matter. Once the people speak (even if the people who spoke did so illegally and tricked others so they could not speak), the die is cast and the courts should not become involved even if the law was broken.

This is, in my view, a very interesting position from a government the styles itself as a law and order government. To argue that violations of the law are not important is, surely, a contradiction from those people who want to build superprisons. For the record, I would argue that the rule of law is a characteristic of democracy, not something that stands in opposition to it.

In Guergis case we have another interesting contradiction. Harper, coming out of a Reform background that urged decentralization and constituent control, is arguing that the PM alone has the right to determine who runs for the party.  This might be the way things actually function. I have no doubt it is. But, surely, the populism on which Harper supposedly cut his political teeth demands a different type of response. It demands at least the pretence that local riding associations have some say in who runs under their banner. The fact that Harper and crew do not feel compelled to even make this pretence, say, I think, something about their mounting confidence in office and this begs another set of questions that swift journalist (one more interesting in public good and the operation of power in society then "juicy" details) might ask. Why are is the CPC confident? Do they have reason to be? Should the lingering Reformers in the CPC not be "called" on this issue since they once stood for the polar opposite of what they claim to now stand for?

Alas ... mainstream Canadian journalism being what it is, I suspect we will get no answers to these questions but a lot of "juicy" details, perhaps even descriptions of what people wore to court.

Electoral Cooperation (or, the NDP and the Liberals Part Two)

A blog or two ago I suggested that electoral mergers are not flags of convenience. They occur for specific historic reasons that involve more than people in opposition saying "hey, let's get together to win an election." Instead, they occur because the differences that organized people into different political perspectives are no longer relevant, because people come together for a new reason (say, as did Harper and his crew to fundamentally alter Canada).  There may be other reasons but my point is that we need to treat politics seriously. We can't see it just as bunch of win-the-election by hook or by crook; the one is the same as the other Ottawa soap opera. (Spin doctoring is important for politics, to be sure, but spin doctoring is part of how an historic bloc functions and has changed over time.)

The possibility of an NDP/Liberal merger or electoral coalition, I suggested, might be one of those "time is right" ideas not in the sense that it would ensure defeat of the Conservatives. It wouldn't. I won't predict who will win the Stanley Cup next year; I'm not going to predict who will in an election in three years time! Instead, the time is right because of historic changes. There has been a great deal of talk about these historic changes and, frankly, my own view is that they are easy to overestimate. In all the talk about changes (communications, technology, education, jobs, media), we might think about the things that have remained the same. We might get an oddly long list.

Historic change, then, is not some vague type of thing ("everything changes"). Instead, it is specific set of changes in the organization of society, the place of Canada in the global capitalist order, gender relations, etc. The rise of the CPC is one element of this change. It represents the views of a particular set of ideologues (what Gramsci called "organic intellectuals") and a specific organization of society. It signals the rise to power of a specific historic bloc (a particular formation of social classes) that imagines Canada's future in a specific way and looks to use government to attain that imagined future. It involves the articulation of the aspirations of subject classes through a dominant class. I need to do more work on this to be even more specific but you get the point. The rise of the CPC both is and is not the historic change to which the NDP and the Liberals need to respond.  It is not an historic change in the sense that losing an election is not necessarily an historic change. The PCs lost a bunch of elections in the 1960s and 1970s (1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1980); the NDP lost even more if you add in 1979 (won by Clark's minority PC gov.). These defeats were not historic because the structure and nature of Canadian politics did not change as a result of these defeats. Being on the losing side in an election might demonstrate, for instance, a balance of forces in a particular historic bloc.

On the other hand, some electoral defeats (which, of course, are wins for others) do signal changes. The 1921 election of King's Liberals signaled a wider shift in the nature of Canadian liberalism and Canada, for instance.  

The Harper electoral victories, on the other hand, can be an historic change if they represent the development of a new historic bloc; that they signal a transition in the organization of Canadian society (both domestically and in terms of how Canada relates to the world). I have been suggesting that this is precisely the case. Mulroney's 1984 victory was of "historic proportions" but did not really change the character and nature of Canada. Indeed, his efforts to do so by and large failed in the face of opposition from Canadians who were willing to "turf out" the Liberals but who remained committed, with lot of caveats here, to liberal ideas. In effect, in 1984, Canadians tried to opt for liberalism without the Liberals. Mulroney's failure was that he misunderstood this and, wrongly, believed that his victory meant that Canadians were turning their back on Trudeauvian liberalism. They weren't. They turned their backs on the Liberal Party, but not the ideas and image of the country it inspired.

Harper's victories can be seen as something else. I don't think Canadians have ditched the ideals of liberalism but I do think that Harper and his crew are setting out, in a more thorough and careful way, to alter the fundamental conception of the country. Unlike Mulroney, Harper seemed to understand that he did not have a mandate to change Canada and that part of his job, as a Conservative, was to lead Canada in a new direction though without actually saying that was what he was doing. He understood, in other words, that there is a difference between wanting to change things and having a mandate to change things. You can change things, if you don't have a mandate, but it requires a different type of politics. This is what Harper is up to.

If this is the case, the Liberals and NDP face a number of possible options for the future. If they are facing an historic change, they may indeed want to reconsider the character and nature of their parties. If they are facing an historic change, their task in opposition, is to articulate a vision of Canada that can serve as a realistic option to Harper's conservatism. This might require a new party. Indeed, I'd be so bold as to suggest it will. But, if Harper's victories do not represent the development of a new era, as it were, in Canadian public life, then something less than a merger will work. Indeed, branding alone might be a good reason to maintain different parties. The Liberals, for instance, retain regional bases of strength (anglophone Quebec, middle class Ontario, parts of Newfoundland) that might not go for a new party. In this case, an electoral coalition of sorts that would allow each party to win seats without having to devote resources to competing with the other - useful in the face of the Tory war chest - would certainly have an appeal.

So … to conclude: losing an election is something that requires analysis. For neither the NDP, Liberals, nor the old PCs or Reform, is an election loss a reason to "jump ship." One needs to carefully analyse what is going on with that loss, why it occurred, etc. before one decides on a response to it. Abandoning an ideology one holds dear (say, liberalism or socialism or conservatism) is not easy. Precisely because it is not easy, no party can assume that its followers will, in fact, follow it into a new political party. We know that a lot of PCs did not follow their leaders. Losing an election might indicate simply that one lost an election. This happens in a democracy. It might, however, mean something else. I will bet we will only see a merger if members of the NDP and Liberals have decided that their loss in the last election means something else.

Proroguing Parliament: The Message

Is proroguing Parliament undemocratic? Depends on how you look it. It is unusual but also a prerogative of a Prime Minister. In other words, it is not outside the rules by which the Canadian parliamentary system functions. On the other hand, the Parliamentary system is not static. To use a procedural trick -- a technicality, let's call it -- to avoid facing the music is something that is clearly of questionable ethics. Even if proroguing is a prerogative of a PM, it is not clear that Canadians believe such technicalities should be used to cut of legislative discussion of important issues.

There is a more important issue here, however, and it is this: I don't think Harper is lying. I don't think he is trying to avoid Parliament. That might be a side benefit and some of his ministers and MPs might be happy to have a chance to recover from the shell shock of some recent problems, but I think he's telling the truth when he says that he wants to test the pulse of the country. I think he is being completely honest when he says that he wants to figure out what Canadians think before bringing in new economic policies. And, this, is the problem.

Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament is a sign of the problems with Canadian democracy not because he is shutting off debate. That debate will continue in the news, in speeches, in door-to-door campaigning, in blogs, etc. (I'm not saying these are a substitute for a legislature!) Instead, this is a sign of the demise of democracy in the sense that it indicates that Harper intends to "govern by polls." In some ways, this should not be surprising. He and others have already suspended, for reasons of political convenience, key elements of conservative ideology. Why not go the next step and not even bother to put your ideas "out there" to see how Canadians respond. Why not go and find out what Canadians want and then give that to them?

I see this as a sign of democracy because it displaces serious public debate on important issues not by proroguing but by abandoning one's perspective and turning one's party, as it were, into political mercenaries. Conservatives long said that they were unfairly demonized by liberals. They were not scary. That's wrong. They were scary to a lot of us. They rejected equality, believed in a free market system that ... ahem, seems to be having some serious empirical problems, opposed bilingualism, rejected the idea of a national polity (remember the "firewall"?), opposed gun control, rejected the idea that women should control their bodies, wanted to dramatically lower immigration, wanted Canada to be fighting in Iraq, supported Bush, Jr's Star Wars II missile shield, and argued for a two tier health care system. This is scary stuff and, with some exceptions, they have moved away from most of these ideas or let them drop into the past or left them to private members to raise.

Now, you can tell by the way I have phrased these comments that I'm no C/conservative. I believe in equality, support bilingualism, was glad Canada did not involve itself in Iraq or in the missile shield. I support gun control and believe women should control their bodies. I'm pro-diversity and pro-immigration and think socialized medicine is wonderful. What I want, however, is democratic discussion of these issues and that requires someone to carry them forward. The most logical people to do that are the people that believe in them: conservatives. After all, if you rely on me to play Devil's advocate and argue against gun control for the sake of having a discussion about it, I won't do a very good job.

Proroguing Parliament indicates clearly that the Harper government has extended its "party for hire" approach to politics into the economic sphere. They'll spin Canadian views in the way that is closest to their believes, to be sure, but what Party doesn't? What they are telling us, however, is something other than spin. What they are telling us is that they don't want to put their own ideas on the table because Canadians might reject them and they could lose power so they are just not going to do that. I guess I can't blame them for this. Having power must be awfully appealing. It is, however, a missed opportunity for Canadians to consider their future.

Polls and Conservatism

I spend a great deal of time speculating about Canadian liberalism. This is not out of any love of it, but out of an acknowledgment of its importance to Canada, particularly Canadian historical development. I spend less time speculating about conservatism because ... well, while conservatism is there, it has simply been less influential over the last century or so. There is no doubt that conservatism was vital to Confederation and the first generation of the Dominion of Canada and some of its legacies live on, say in the unelected Senate. My general take in scattered blogs is that Canadian conservatives are not really very conservative. They are fractured, divided group, some of whom are liberals who don't like specific elements of liberalism, some are honest-to-God conservatives (we might call these "red Tories"), others are populists who drifted into the Conservative party, others are refugees from old third parties (Reform, Social Credit) or connected to new ones (Wild Rose). Others hold strong religious views and still others -- a decided minority I think -- are bigots of various sorts (whom Conservative politicians try periodically to drive out of their party).

The latest polls are getting a lot of press because they show a free fall for the Conservative party. Various pundits have been quick to lay the blame at the feet of Stephen Harper with his odd penchant for proroguing Parliament; the dug and run, shoot the messenger on horrific news from Afghanistan, and the slower than hoped for recovery of the Canadian economy. Harper clearly deserves some of this blame. I personally think his government should be criticized for other reasons as well. But, we might ask: does this decline in the polls suggest that these events are having an effect on Canadian voting intentions? And, what does it matter?

One strategy to defeat a party in power is build up a bunch of different criticisms of it. This has been the strategy that the Liberals (and BQ and NDP) have taken with the CPC. We might call it the "death by a thousand cuts" approach to political transition. Go after everything, hold hearings to try to find more bad stuff lurking in closets, and grab every piece of potentially bad news in order to build up a long list of problems. The idea here seems to be that one of two things will happen. An increasing number of Canadians will conclude that this government is no good because it has done so many things wrong and vote for one of the opposition parties. Or, an increasing number of Canadians will conclude that this government is no good because one issue or another will appeal to them. It need not be the same issue for different people. If you can get some people upset at the treatment of POWs in Afghanistan and some people upset at economic management, and some people upset at anti-democratic practices then, together, you have a whole bunch of people upset.

Public commentators -- pundits -- often miss this strategy because they are so myopic. They focus on one issue at a time, rather than their cumulative effect. What is important to note here, however, is that for opposition parties, this is a long-run strategy, at least in terms of the way politics is practiced today. The goal is not to slam dunk over Harper's head, but  take a lot of shots from the perimeter and play to win the game rather than get one highlight-of-the-night basket.

These same commentators, because they miss the point of this oppositional political strategy, also misinterpret polls. They suggest that CPC problems relate to immediate issues. In part they do but not in completely. The problems with the declining popularity of the Conservative government relates, in a large measure, to the fact that Canadians are not a particularly conservative people (prudent and believing in tradition are not the same as conservative. I like to think of myself as a prudent individual, for example. I try to budget carefully, check my kids homework, etc. I also like tradition. I my workplace and at my church I often argue to keep certain practices because they are traditions, even if those practices are not particularly useful). And, those Canadians who are conservative and fractured and divided. One can be a fiscal conservative, for instance (Paul Martin was as Finance Minister!) and reject social or cultural conservativism. This makes the CPC inherently unstable and its voting base has a lack of solidity. The election of the Harper government, I'd argue, did not represent an ideological or philosophical turn on the part of Canadians. Indeed, you'll recall that Harper expressly campaigned against this idea. He quieted social and cultural conservatives in his party and argued that the election was about "good government" not "ideology."

There are conservatives voting for the CPC and they will continue to do so. But, if Harper's election owes more to the implosion of the Liberal Party and to Canadians believing his good government message, then these recent polls need to be interpreted with care. They suggest that the issue for Canadians will continue to be good government and whether or not Harper can convince Canadians that he is the person to provide it, as opposed to whether or not this or that policy will shock or win the approval of Canadians. In other words, what the recent polls indicate is that to continue to government, Harper will have to continue to behave like a moderate and not a conservative. He'll need to avoid controversial issues, stall democratic fora, appeal to Canadians pocket books (even if that might not be the right policy decision), and keep his cabinet looking young and fresh. He'll also, I imagine, continue to sanction Karl Rovesque tactics in terms of attacking other parties.

From this longer run, perspective, then, there is nothing in the polls -- and this is the point I really want to make -- that spells danger for the Harper government. Parliament is prorogued, Canadians are not convinced that he cannot provide good government, and none of the opposition parties has much in the way of traction. There is nothing to be excited about, either, however, because they indicate that the factors that might spell longer run conservative dominance of Canada -- a return to the immediately post-Confederation era? -- are not in place. The conservatives have abandoned conservative ideology and become a collection of different groups opposing liberalism from the right.