Canadian Politics

As was widely expected, Michael Ignatieff recently announced his intention to enter the leadership race to replace Stéphane Dion. That the race will feature a renewed battle between the Rae and Ignatieff camps, means that Canadians will likely see Liberal knives out a little while longer before they see them sheathed away. 

The Liberal party, its leadership candidates and their supporters are rightly examining the Democrats’ recent victory for clues on how to not only energize their increasingly disillusioned base, but to again appear relevant to an increasingly skeptical Canadian public. While a lot of focus has been on Barack Obama, I think there’s a more fundamental lesson on party solidarity to be learned from Hillary Clinton.  

The evening of November 4, my Facebook news feed read like a lament for a nation. My Canadian friends, inspired by the candidacy of Barack Obama, began to long for their own visionary and transformational leader.

Through their status messages, young Canadians expressed their envy of how engaging American politics had become. They too wanted to reclaim their government, but felt aimless without a compelling figure to call them to action. They wondered, “Where’s Canada’s Barack Obama?”

True, it often takes an inspiring figure to galvanize a critical mass of people. And Barack Obama’s charisma and inspiring message were certainly part of his stunning victory. But neither his candidacy nor his election would have been possible without the willingness of everyday Americans to believe in something greater than them and work tirelessly to change their country. Young Canadians looking for their own Barack Obama should start by looking at themselves.

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the Democratic Party managed to shatter the coalition that Karl Rove had hoped would create a permanent Republican majority in Washington. Rove’s strategy was to energize the Christian Conservative base while fracturing the opposition with “wedge issues” such as gun control, gay marriage, and abortion.

Stephen Harper has ambitions of creating a permanent Conservative majority in Ottawa. His strategy is very different from Rove’s. He essentially hopes to recreate the Mulroney coalition by holding grassroots Western support, winning over Québecois soft nationalists, and splitting Ontario and the Atlantic region with the Liberals and NDP. What lessons can the Liberal Party learn from the Democratic victory that might help them return to power?

New rule: Liberal MPs are prohibited from saying the words “Barack Obama,” at least in reference to their upcoming leadership campaign and the broader renewal of their fledgling party.

Just a few days after Barack Obama rode into the White House on the shoulders of the largest grassroots campaign in the history of democracy, elected Liberals emerged from a caucus meeting proposing to restrict participation in the process to choose their next leader.

Even more upsetting is that while some Liberals were busy spouting their very un-Obamaesque ideas, their Leader was suggesting the Party emulate the legendary figure’s grassroots approach. The Liberals just don’t get it.

Canadian democracy is in crisis and it’s largely the media’s fault. The recent federal election campaign demonstrates the extent to which the Canadian media has abdicated its responsibility as the fourth branch of government. There are two possible explanations for this tragedy. Either media coverage reflects the attributes of journalists, or it portrays the attributes of citizens.

Based on the coverage of the federal election, this means that either journalists are superficial, unsophisticated, and lazy, or that Canadians are superficial, unsophisticated, and lazy. Both phenomena are equally troubling. But I’m convinced that the cheap coverage we just witnessed is a reflection on the media rather than the citizenry.

A close friend of mine who’s an expert in finance just sent me a very disturbing email. Explaining the factors conspiring to hurl North America into a deep recession, he said “we’re so close to Armageddon…I can’t believe it!” I can confirm that every day on Wall Street feels like one step closer to catastrophe. And, despite what Harper says about Canada’s “economic fundamentals”, our country is in deep trouble too.

Yesterday, a group of Canada’s leading economists were united in their warning of a severe and prolonged recession. Canada’s economy could be in decline until the end of 2009 due to the weak U.S. economy, falling oil prices, and lower domestic demand.

Federal elections are the moment in time when Canada pays homage to the Greek tradition of Democracy. Civil actors vow to enter a private booth on a marked day and stroke a ballot; the media drops the bundle of entertainment fodder it has been gathering and sharpens its pencil; and candidates quit their jobs to grease and shine their scripts. On Day Zero, ballots are tallied and the chosen are anointed with laurels. So why is it that 24 hours after the ceremony, Canadians are gathering munitions and suspiciously eyeing frontiers, instead of celebrating the good fortune of being the planet’s repeat flag-bearer of Freedom? What’s wrong with the electoral process?

Am I the only one who thinks the federal election campaign is about nothing? While nothing makes for hilarious sitcoms, it’s horrifying during an election campaign, particularly for progressives. With the prospect of a Conservative majority, we desperately need a meaningful and vigorous debate about the future of our country. But, as I found out, some progressive parties aren’t interested in talking about the issues.

In a desperate attempt to prove that this campaign is about something, I analyzed each of the parties’ news releases posted since the beginning of the campaign.

Canada’s leaders debates are dysfunctional. Viewers hoping get a real sense of who the candidates are and what they stand for are too often disappointed. As Rex Murphy points out, they’re often highly-scripted affairs, resulting in a lack of substance and authenticity. I agree with Rex that we need more debates, but if we’re going to make these events worthy of missing Grey’s Anatomy, the format has to be changed drastically.

An ideal debate format would knock the candidates off their talking points and force them to engage in a genuine discussion. Admittedly, no format will ever get a disciplined politician to ignore her message entirely, but it can encourage moments of spontaneity and expose overly-scripted participants. In order to accomplish this, I think we need a format that’s as open and free-wielding as possible.