April is the Cruelest - And a Sad Spectacle, Too
"April is the cruelest month": for T.S. Eliot, Paul Martin, the Liberal Party and certainly for the Canadian parliamentary system.
Thursday April 21, 2005 held an unusual opportunity to alter the course of the crisis in leadership that burdens Canada. The Prime Minister took a bold step in addressing the Nation - took that step amidst the to-be-expected criticism of all opposition parties. For better or worse he had something to say to Canadians.
Stephen Harper responded immediately with: "We have just witnessed a sad spectacle". This was not his spontaneous and authentic reaction to Martin's actual words. This was his prepared statement, and it showed that he had decided in advance to attack regardless of what was said. He put his spin on Martin's words without having listened to those words. He was not alone, only first and most insulting; Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton also spoke from prepared scripts and that is what speaks volumes: they too had already decided not to listen or give a moment's reflection to the remarks. Ironically they validated the Prime Minister's use of television for his message - something they had vocally admonished - rather than trying to be heard above the din of the House of Commons.
The sponsorship scandal has been about Liberal Party ethics. Okay, let's talk ethics. How ethical is it to have the intent - the premeditated design - to be disdainful without even pretending to hear? There has rightly been intense focus on the corruption that was Adscam, but is it not a corruption of another kind for leaders elected to govern Canada to make it their primary task to obstruct government?
More than the news out of the Gomery enquiry, what was most discouraging that night was Mr. Harper's misuse of the opportunity. His sanctimonious rebuttal was offensive to the office he holds.
The Prime Minister laid out a response to the scandal and a proposal for how to proceed. By all means disagree and argue his points, but do so having heard and reflected on those points. To skip the listening part - how ethical is that Stephen, Gilles, Jack?
And yet honest engagement is not encouraged within our political system. Parties are driven to gain power. It is written into their job description to deliberately paint any action of the other in a negative light. So for example, the opposition leaders call Martin's act desperate, as if that was shameful. Of course he's desperate - and who's holding the stick? If they threaten daily to bring down the Government, the Government will take desperate measures. To criticize Martin for reacting in a logical manner to what they themselves have induced is a denial of their responsibility. While there is a political rationale for this, in relationship it is so fundamentally dishonourable that its rot goes far deeper than the alleged corruption within the Liberal Party. Not one of these so-called leaders is believable because his agenda is so ill disguised. Their behaviour is not so very different from the bully in the schoolyard who must belittle someone so that he can feel superior. In a system that fosters this, how could integrity be a component?
Since the minority government was elected a year ago the opposition has been looking for the opportunity to bring it down. Stephen Harper wants to be Prime minister and as soon as he feels he has a chance, he will force an election. Never mind the work of governing, never mind the cost of another election a mere year later, never mind the wishes of Canadians. His interests are self-serving and not served by collaborating on the tasks of running the country.
The Government is paralyzed and no doubt that is in part because of Mr. Dithers and no doubt many are displeased with Liberal initiatives, or lack thereof. But it is also paralyzed because the opposition parties want it to be. If the Liberal minority government is "teetering on the brink" as Jack Layton said, it is because the other parties would have it so.The minority government was also a missed opportunity to work with the principles of respect and collaboration that are the norm in other areas of our society.
This is the more complex ethical issue with which our leaders must struggle. By comparison, correcting the roots of unethical behaviour that was Adscam is relatively straightforward: it has to do with concrete rules and lines of accountability. Leaders actually understanding and modelling relationship seems a greater impossibility after April 21.
Mr. Harper is harping on corruption. By far the more important 'c' word is collaboration. It is how our parliamentary system ought to work and doesn't. If the system and the leaders within the system were operating out of sound ethical principles, they would demonstrate the intention of listening and the intent to collaborate, and abandon the costly game they're playing at the expense of Canada.
A sad spectacle indeed, Mr. Harper.
Thursday April 21, 2005 held an unusual opportunity to alter the course of the crisis in leadership that burdens Canada. The Prime Minister took a bold step in addressing the Nation - took that step amidst the to-be-expected criticism of all opposition parties. For better or worse he had something to say to Canadians.
Stephen Harper responded immediately with: "We have just witnessed a sad spectacle". This was not his spontaneous and authentic reaction to Martin's actual words. This was his prepared statement, and it showed that he had decided in advance to attack regardless of what was said. He put his spin on Martin's words without having listened to those words. He was not alone, only first and most insulting; Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton also spoke from prepared scripts and that is what speaks volumes: they too had already decided not to listen or give a moment's reflection to the remarks. Ironically they validated the Prime Minister's use of television for his message - something they had vocally admonished - rather than trying to be heard above the din of the House of Commons.
The sponsorship scandal has been about Liberal Party ethics. Okay, let's talk ethics. How ethical is it to have the intent - the premeditated design - to be disdainful without even pretending to hear? There has rightly been intense focus on the corruption that was Adscam, but is it not a corruption of another kind for leaders elected to govern Canada to make it their primary task to obstruct government?
More than the news out of the Gomery enquiry, what was most discouraging that night was Mr. Harper's misuse of the opportunity. His sanctimonious rebuttal was offensive to the office he holds.
The Prime Minister laid out a response to the scandal and a proposal for how to proceed. By all means disagree and argue his points, but do so having heard and reflected on those points. To skip the listening part - how ethical is that Stephen, Gilles, Jack?
And yet honest engagement is not encouraged within our political system. Parties are driven to gain power. It is written into their job description to deliberately paint any action of the other in a negative light. So for example, the opposition leaders call Martin's act desperate, as if that was shameful. Of course he's desperate - and who's holding the stick? If they threaten daily to bring down the Government, the Government will take desperate measures. To criticize Martin for reacting in a logical manner to what they themselves have induced is a denial of their responsibility. While there is a political rationale for this, in relationship it is so fundamentally dishonourable that its rot goes far deeper than the alleged corruption within the Liberal Party. Not one of these so-called leaders is believable because his agenda is so ill disguised. Their behaviour is not so very different from the bully in the schoolyard who must belittle someone so that he can feel superior. In a system that fosters this, how could integrity be a component?
Since the minority government was elected a year ago the opposition has been looking for the opportunity to bring it down. Stephen Harper wants to be Prime minister and as soon as he feels he has a chance, he will force an election. Never mind the work of governing, never mind the cost of another election a mere year later, never mind the wishes of Canadians. His interests are self-serving and not served by collaborating on the tasks of running the country.
The Government is paralyzed and no doubt that is in part because of Mr. Dithers and no doubt many are displeased with Liberal initiatives, or lack thereof. But it is also paralyzed because the opposition parties want it to be. If the Liberal minority government is "teetering on the brink" as Jack Layton said, it is because the other parties would have it so.The minority government was also a missed opportunity to work with the principles of respect and collaboration that are the norm in other areas of our society.
This is the more complex ethical issue with which our leaders must struggle. By comparison, correcting the roots of unethical behaviour that was Adscam is relatively straightforward: it has to do with concrete rules and lines of accountability. Leaders actually understanding and modelling relationship seems a greater impossibility after April 21.
Mr. Harper is harping on corruption. By far the more important 'c' word is collaboration. It is how our parliamentary system ought to work and doesn't. If the system and the leaders within the system were operating out of sound ethical principles, they would demonstrate the intention of listening and the intent to collaborate, and abandon the costly game they're playing at the expense of Canada.
A sad spectacle indeed, Mr. Harper.
posted by Pat Archer at 11:36 AM
0 comments
