Fear and loathing in Ottawa

[oneh2obabe]

Linda Diebel
National Affairs Writer - thestar.com

Listening to the voice at the other end of the phone line, I have only one question: “Okay, who are you and what have you done with Heather MacIvor?”

University of Windsor political scientist MacIvor is pulling her punches. Asked about Stephen Harper's style, she describes “an unusually unforthcoming government.” Previously, she's criticized the PM's “quite remarkable” degree of control and secrecy, with the same blunt, take-no-prisoners approach she adopts for politicians of all stripes. One imagines her as the kid about whom parents complain with barely disguised pride, “Such a mouth on that girl!”

Instead, this time, MacIvor says she's “become self-censoring on the subject of the Conservatives. Life is too short for so much stress.”

She expects to take lumps for her political opinions. What's changed with this government is that she says she's portrayed as “an enemy of the party” and “fair game” for vicious, personal attacks, which fill her inbox.

“I should be able to speak my mind on political issues, but I've found members of the Conservative party seem to be more sensitive to criticism than other parties,” she says. “They make it very personal.”

It's no secret Harper runs a tight ship with little room for dissension. In the months leading up to his first minority government's five-year anniversary on Feb. 6, I interviewed about 30 politicians, public servants, consultants and academics about his style and brand on Parliament. Some requested anonymity because they fear repercussions.

For the most part, what emerged is a portrait of a highly intelligent, skilled and super-partisan politician whose style has created a mood of fear and loathing on Parliament Hill. He hasn't shied away from stoking an “us versus them” dynamic in the country. Critics use words like “control freak” and “mean-spirited.”

To his admirers, this very toughness is the hallmark of a successful politician. Ottawa consultant Geoff Norquay says Harper came in after a Paul Martin Liberal government that had “58 top priorities” and tightened up. He got rid of the weekly “blather” to the media by government politicians after their Wednesday morning caucus meetings.

“Like all extremely focused and capable people, he's rigorous and tough-minded and demands the same from people around him,” says Norquay. Harper believes there's nothing more destructive than scuttlebutt about a pending decision and takes the view: “When I have something to announce, I will come out and tell you.”

Still, accounts of intimidation are more numerous. MacIvor's experience suggests an escalation of a war against anyone who is seen as critical of Harper and his government. That apparently includes an academic far from Parliament Hill, whose job requires her to comment on political issues.

“It's approaching a state in which people are paralyzed by fear,” says political scientist Henry Jacek. “I'm talking about civil servants, MPs, cabinet ministers — they all have to be careful. They're all expected to read from the same script.”

full article
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/art ... ttawa?bn=1

[_______________]

As with most political postings, if anyone reads it then this thread is likely to devolve into name-calling and people further cementing themselves in the opinions they've previously formed. The problem, as always, is that it's easy to agree with what's going on when you support the current leaders or where they stand on the political spectrum, and it's easy to disagree when you do not. But before any ill-tempered terms get slung around I would like to point out that this article has almost nothing to do with politics. It has to do with power.

I am going to assume that what the article proposes is happening is actually true. For the sake of my argument it doesn't really matter, because it could conceivably be true, and it could conceivably be true for any government. Some of you may disagree with this last point, but with increased political polarization this kind of behaviour becomes almost necessary. The danger, then, is that with increased polarization of the politics in this country you are giving increasing power to the government; sooner or later that government will not be one that you agree with, and what happens then?

If you happen to support Harper's government, then imagine for a second that a different leader is in power, and that person is attempting to silence any dissent against their policies. Perhaps imagine that an NDP hopeful has become Prime Minister, and that they have widely expanded social welfare programs to cover people that you in no way think should be covered. Many would be outraged at the lack of fiscal responsibility this might entail - and rightly so. I would hope that their outrage is both heard and considered, and I hope that professionals in the field would be able to voice their opinions to both the public and the government itself. These opinions are valuable, because a balance needs to be found between social responsibilities and fiscal responsibilities in this specific case. Now imagine that all of these opinions are not just ignored, but visibly downtrodden. How angry you would be if the people who used to speak for you no longer have a voice? This is the anger that people on the left currently feel. The unfortunate fact is that you should be almost this angry now, because the next time around it could be happening to you.

The obvious argument against this from the right is that 'so and so doesn't have the balls to stick up for what they believe like Harper is doing'. From the left, this same point would be made as 'so and so never abuse their power in such a manner'. I think these statements - which are opposite sides of the same coin - will not hold up for long. The other political parties will soon have to adjust to this way of playing the game if they want to remain relevant. If the current leaders fail to be seen to be as influential as the current government then the public will (and in most cases already does) see them as spineless or weak leaders. I'm willing to concede that this may not be how things turn out - but only if the public can accept that sometimes the government must compromise. If the right fails to compromise then the left will have no choice but to stand their own ground in turn. Politics will divide further, nothing will get done, and people will become even more entrenched in their views.

So please, for just a second, examine the flip-side of the coin and ask yourself if you would still be as angry or as okay with this kind of behaviour if the opposite party were doing it. Remember that our entire political system is based on balances and checks, not on absolutes and extremes. Consider that winning every battle without any compromise might actually be detrimental to the country, because you are not right all of the time. Fight the polarization of politics because no one person or party has all the answers, but realize that those in power would love for us to be divided.

If you cannot do these things, then at least remember that almost no government in history has given up power that has been gained over their population. If this kind of power is now given to the government, what happens when that government is no longer on your side?

[steven lloyd]

Another great post ______________ . I especially appreciate the way in which you wrapped it up, and realize I am digressing to toward our own provincial situation when I reference the part I bolded and what I fear we might expect more of if the Liberals select "looking for a fight" Falcon as their next leader and then win the next election. Just my opinion of course.

So please, for just a second, examine the flip-side of the coin and ask yourself if you would still be as angry or as okay with this kind of behaviour if the opposite party were doing it. Remember that our entire political system is based on balances and checks, not on absolutes and extremes. Consider that winning every battle without any compromise might actually be detrimental to the country, because you are not right all of the time. Fight the polarization of politics because no one person or party has all the answers, but realize that those in power would love for us to be divided.

If you cannot do these things, then at least remember that almost no government in history has given up power that has been gained over their population. If this kind of power is now given to the government, what happens when that government is no longer on your side?

[Homeownertoo]

If you happen to support Harper's government, then imagine for a second that a different leader is in power, and that person is attempting to silence any dissent against their policies. Perhaps imagine that an NDP hopeful has become Prime Minister, and that they have widely expanded social welfare programs to cover people that you in no way think should be covered. Many would be outraged at the lack of fiscal responsibility this might entail - and rightly so.

The problem with your analogy in regard to this issue is that the Harper gov't does not have a majority and so has not been able to implement any radical shifts in governance or policy. And it is hard to imagine any minority gov't being in position to "silence any dissent against their policies". Such a scenario could only be conceivable after a series of majority gov'ts (one party), giving that party in power control over both policy implementation, and time and opportunity to significantly change the complexion of the bureaucracy, where most policy is drafted.