Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Canada sees new conservatism

Almost lost in the excitement of an actual competitive election race in Canada is what this particular election really means to the political landscape.

The choice Albertans face between the upstart and inexperienced Wildrose Party versus the rusting Progressive Conservative party quickly has become a battle about what it means to be a conservative in Canada today. And should the recent polls in the race prove accurate, we may have just pushed conservatism in Canada much further to the right.

Before we go too far down that road, however, we should explore a couple of points germane to such a discussion.

First, such philosophical debates are ongoing in political parties. Look no further than the recent machinations in federal NDP and Liberal ranks. In fact, they've been happening in conservative ranks for the past quartercentury. For instance, the demise of federal and provincial PCs, the rise of Reform and the Saskatchewan Party; Stephen Harper's Conservatives, etc.

Second, elections are less about philosophical matters and more about what's important to voters. For Albertans in this case, it's the state of their 41-year-old government.

This certainly has been the theme of Wildrose leader Danielle Smith, who's talks about "career politicians" and even about how the Progressive Conservatives have been on the wrong path for much of the past 41 years. Certainly, her narrative has been aided and abetted by such things as PC MLAs gleefully pocketing paycheques for doing nothing on "no-meet committees."

Perhaps the consequences of this culture of entitlement might be of interest to Premier Brad Wall's government, which has had little problem adding three more MLAs and accepting a 2.8 per cent pay increase at a time it's calling on seniors to pay more for prescription drugs.

The Alberta PCs certainly haven't done themselves any favours with a shoddily run campaign. The tweet from a Tory staffer wondering why Smith didn't have children was simply atrocious. And Alberta media have been quick to point out the inexperience of Premier Alison Redford and problems with her insular style, and how the PCs have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) what a competitive election campaign is really like.

Notwithstanding these factors, what's most interesting about the Alberta family feud is how it might actually be redefining the boundaries of right-wing conservatism in Canada.

Take the leaders debate Thursday night that had Redford and Smith (and the also-ran leaders of the NDP and Liberals) square off over issues such as the $300 rebates a Wildrose government would offer Albertans from surpluses versus the PC vision that offers no rebates, but more money put toward health and education.

To be clear, notwithstanding former PC premier Ed Stelmach's interest in getting slightly more equitable royalties from the oil sector, Redford's Tories haven't exactly turned into frothing-at-the-mouth socialists. After all, this is still Alberta. That there wasn't much meaningful debate on the future of the oilsands and environment issues says much about how rightof-centre Albertans expect their governments to be.

But consider what the right-wing discourse has become in this most rightwing of provinces: One very right-wing party is advocating spending cuts for the purpose of giving rebates to voters, while the party that has governed the province from right for the past 41 years is advocating the "moderate" stance of prioritizing the use of tax dollars for schools and hospitals.

This has become a campaign that we should all watch.

Smith has criticized Redford for putting pragmatism before principles. The Wildrose leader is an unabashed admirer of Stephen Harper, and her party advocates health-care professionals choosing on the basis of conscience what services they will provide.

Premier Wall and the Saskatchewan Party have been criticized for being too loyal to Harper and too rightwing, including the recent budget that ended subsidies to the film industry as a matter of philosophical principle. But have we ever heard Wall advocate anything close to what we're now hearing from Smith?

Redford clearly is a "red" Tory by Alberta standards, and is arguably to the left of Wall. But like our premier, she's also an admirer of Peter Lougheed's brand of conservatism that emphasized delivery of public services and shared ownership of public resources.

The Smith/Wildrose conservative brand is far more to the right.

In this Alberta campaign we are likely witnessing the bloom of a very different kind of conservatism in Canada.

Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: Murray Mandryk

No comments:

Post a Comment