One view — that held by the Opposition — is that Harper is an autocrat who has no respect for parliamentary democracy. Bill C-38, the government’s omnibus budget bill, is the latest piece of evidence for this.
The other view is that Harper is a realist, that is, someone who is focused on getting things done. If transparency or accountability suffers somewhat in the process, so be it. First and foremost, people want results — and prime ministers who ignore this don’t get re-elected.
In fact, historians may settle on a third view, one that sees Harper as the final, and logical, conclusion of a 40-year trend that began with Pierre Trudeau, and continued through Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien and even Paul Martin’s brief reign.
In the early 1970s, the Trudeau government adopted a new generation of governance tools to make it more effective in the modern-day world. The approach involved rigorous new management practices, and the formation of complex plans — “strategies” — which the prime minister would push forward, using the power of his office.
What wasn’t clear at the time was that execution of these strategies also called for more Executive control over the system. As this came to light, it set in motion a decades-long centralizing trend during which succesive PMOs clawed ever more power away from Parliament.
While opposition parties condemned Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Harper for weakening democracy by weakening Parliament, these leaders saw increasing centralization as the unavoidable cost of getting things done. And, all things being equal, perhaps they were right.
Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there. Indeed, a whole new chapter may be opening. There is growing evidence of a ripple effect that is now reaching other parts of the body politic. If so, centralization may be having a far more profound impact on our system of government than anyone realized.
Falling voter turnout, especially among youth, is a striking example. Elections give citizens a legitimate and orderly way to challenge and change governments. Without them, our democracy would quickly revert to some form of authoritarian rule.
So why don’t young people vote? In particular, why don’t the ones who are protesting tuition hikes in Quebec, or those in the Occupy movement, take their concerns to the ballot box? Don’t they realize that their protests are calling into question the legitimacy of our democratically elected governments?
Yes, they realize this. That is exactly the point. They are taking to the streets because they don’t believe the political system works. They don’t believe it creates real accountability. Once elected, they think a government is essentially free to do what it wants, so they see no point in voting.
If this were just uninformed prattle, it would be annoying, but we would find ways to cope with it. Unfortunately, young people are making a serious point and the evidence for it is mounting.
Take Bill C-38. When replying to charges that it was a Trojan horse, the Harper government argued that it had to get these measures passed quickly to support the economic recovery. In other words, democracy was deemed less important than effective governance.
Okay, but where does this end? We learned a long time ago that, in a contest between democracy and effectiveness, nine times out of ten democracy will lose. Eventually, people will stop trusting the government at all.
Sound familiar? If not, let me spell it out.
It is one thing for opposition parties to accuse the government of being undemocratic. It is another when people take to the streets to do so. It is profoundly disturbing when a whole generation no longer sees a point in voting–or at least it should be.
The lesson here is simple: too much centralization undermines legitimacy. The more scope a government thinks it has to act unilaterally in the name of effectiveness, the less legitimacy those actions will have.
A final point: this issue is not unique to the federal government. As the protesters in Quebec and the Occupy movement suggest, something similar seems to be happening in provincial governments and elsewhere around the world.
We appear to be crossing some kind of threshold. Something basic in our politics is broken. Somehow, democracy and effectiveness have come uncoupled and we need to reconnect them.
The good news is that we don’t need to start from scratch, nor are we alone. Open Government is an emerging international movement based on a very different view of governance, one in which more democracy leads to better—that is, more effective—governance. There is a whole literature on why this is so.
But is it true?
Well, let’s conclude by saying that it had better be, because if we are wrong about this, we are wrong about democracy. And that would bode very badly for the next act in this political drama.
Original Article
Source: iPolitics
Author: Don Lenihan
No comments:
Post a Comment