We've created a monster
Naturally I was as distressed as anyone at the news Stephen Harper had taken to closing his speeches with the words "God bless Canada." Talk about control freaks, I thought: Now he's telling God what to do.
By now, the image of Mr. Harper as overbearing, autocratic micro-manager has burned itself into the media's collective retina. Every day seems to bring fresh confirmation of it. Cabinet ministers have been told to clear every public statement through the Prime Minister's Office. Those who stray from the PMO line are subjected to ritual humiliations, Mao-inspired exercises in self-criticism in which they are forced to eat their own words. Pour encourager les autres.
Military leaders have lately come in for the same treatment, though not for any deviations that I can recall. Rather, one suspects, their offence is to be too much in accord: The Prime Minister does not wish the idea to take root that the generals are running the show.
Caucus, meanwhile, is being kept in line by a variety of fiendish medieval instruments, the latest of which reportedly involves a return to the practice of prime ministers naming committee heads -- a practice Mr. Harper himself had manfully opposed while still in, um, opposition.
And then there is his celebrated conflict with the press, a counter-insurgency operation that is already the stuff of lore. Who can forget the epic Battle of the Third Floor Hallway Access? I know pundits who claim to have lost a leg in the Storming of the News Conference Podium. Gentlemen of the press yet abed shall think themselves accursed they were not there.
There is a large dollop of truth in the Harper-as-tyrant storyline, though how much will vary according to the intended victim. Unsurprisingly, the episode that has attracted the most ink is his alleged mistreatment of the media, even if it has yet to register with the broader public. (Or perhaps it has -- in any event, his poll numbers have climbed throughout.) It may come as a shock to the Press Gallery that the Conservatives, like every government before them, have a communications strategy, however unusual it may be -- the strategy is not to communicate -- but that in itself does not constitute an offence against the public good. The embarrassing attempts to turn what is essentially a commercial dispute (to borrow a phrase) into an assault on the freedom of the press only shows how cut off the gallery can be, not just from the rest of the country, but from the rest of the media.
Likewise, it is difficult to get too exercised about Cabinet ministers' freedom of speech. Ministers of the Crown are supposed to sing from the same sheet. It's called Cabinet solidarity, and it's an integral, if neglected part of our system. What was wrong, what was entirely wrong, was for ministers to have carried on as if they were both part of the government and apart from it, neither taking responsibility for government missteps nor registering their displeasure in the only way that counts, by resigning from office. I can't imagine who I have in mind.
As for the military, as refreshing as it was to hear Rick Hillier throwing around words like "scumbag" and boasting of his troops' readiness to kill, it is probably best that it not go too much further than that -- not out of any concern for the egos of his political masters, but to avoid politicizing the military. It's one thing when the brass agrees with the government line. But what happens when it disagrees? The current attempt south of the border to take down Donald Rumsfeld -- that is, to overthrow the representative of civilian authority -- is a disturbing precedent.
Where the line should and must be drawn is with respect to the caucus. It is indeed sad to see Conservative MPs being muzzled, sadder still to see them muzzling themselves -- all in the name of "caucus discipline," professionalism and other names for "winning a majority." Members of Cabinet may be bound by the convention of collective responsibility, but Members of Parliament most certainly are not, even members of the governing party. Indeed, they are not strictly speaking members of the government at all. They, like other MPs, are watchdogs on it, and should bark when the spirit moves them.
But who is to blame for that? Didn't we just go through an election in which the Conservative leader was loudly praised for riding herd on his sometimes restive caucus, ruthlessly suppressing those who went "off message" on such touchy subjects as abortion? And who was it leading the hosannas? The media, that's who. Even as we were chattering happily about the need for more free votes and a relaxation of Canada's stifling system of party discipline, we were rewarding those who practiced the opposite. Indeed, that's what we always do.
Can we blame them for taking the hint? Every time somebody actually speaks their mind in politics, we come down on them like a ton of bricks, shrieking "divisions" and "disarray." Eventually they get the message.
By now, the image of Mr. Harper as overbearing, autocratic micro-manager has burned itself into the media's collective retina. Every day seems to bring fresh confirmation of it. Cabinet ministers have been told to clear every public statement through the Prime Minister's Office. Those who stray from the PMO line are subjected to ritual humiliations, Mao-inspired exercises in self-criticism in which they are forced to eat their own words. Pour encourager les autres.
Military leaders have lately come in for the same treatment, though not for any deviations that I can recall. Rather, one suspects, their offence is to be too much in accord: The Prime Minister does not wish the idea to take root that the generals are running the show.
Caucus, meanwhile, is being kept in line by a variety of fiendish medieval instruments, the latest of which reportedly involves a return to the practice of prime ministers naming committee heads -- a practice Mr. Harper himself had manfully opposed while still in, um, opposition.
And then there is his celebrated conflict with the press, a counter-insurgency operation that is already the stuff of lore. Who can forget the epic Battle of the Third Floor Hallway Access? I know pundits who claim to have lost a leg in the Storming of the News Conference Podium. Gentlemen of the press yet abed shall think themselves accursed they were not there.
There is a large dollop of truth in the Harper-as-tyrant storyline, though how much will vary according to the intended victim. Unsurprisingly, the episode that has attracted the most ink is his alleged mistreatment of the media, even if it has yet to register with the broader public. (Or perhaps it has -- in any event, his poll numbers have climbed throughout.) It may come as a shock to the Press Gallery that the Conservatives, like every government before them, have a communications strategy, however unusual it may be -- the strategy is not to communicate -- but that in itself does not constitute an offence against the public good. The embarrassing attempts to turn what is essentially a commercial dispute (to borrow a phrase) into an assault on the freedom of the press only shows how cut off the gallery can be, not just from the rest of the country, but from the rest of the media.
Likewise, it is difficult to get too exercised about Cabinet ministers' freedom of speech. Ministers of the Crown are supposed to sing from the same sheet. It's called Cabinet solidarity, and it's an integral, if neglected part of our system. What was wrong, what was entirely wrong, was for ministers to have carried on as if they were both part of the government and apart from it, neither taking responsibility for government missteps nor registering their displeasure in the only way that counts, by resigning from office. I can't imagine who I have in mind.
As for the military, as refreshing as it was to hear Rick Hillier throwing around words like "scumbag" and boasting of his troops' readiness to kill, it is probably best that it not go too much further than that -- not out of any concern for the egos of his political masters, but to avoid politicizing the military. It's one thing when the brass agrees with the government line. But what happens when it disagrees? The current attempt south of the border to take down Donald Rumsfeld -- that is, to overthrow the representative of civilian authority -- is a disturbing precedent.
Where the line should and must be drawn is with respect to the caucus. It is indeed sad to see Conservative MPs being muzzled, sadder still to see them muzzling themselves -- all in the name of "caucus discipline," professionalism and other names for "winning a majority." Members of Cabinet may be bound by the convention of collective responsibility, but Members of Parliament most certainly are not, even members of the governing party. Indeed, they are not strictly speaking members of the government at all. They, like other MPs, are watchdogs on it, and should bark when the spirit moves them.
But who is to blame for that? Didn't we just go through an election in which the Conservative leader was loudly praised for riding herd on his sometimes restive caucus, ruthlessly suppressing those who went "off message" on such touchy subjects as abortion? And who was it leading the hosannas? The media, that's who. Even as we were chattering happily about the need for more free votes and a relaxation of Canada's stifling system of party discipline, we were rewarding those who practiced the opposite. Indeed, that's what we always do.
Can we blame them for taking the hint? Every time somebody actually speaks their mind in politics, we come down on them like a ton of bricks, shrieking "divisions" and "disarray." Eventually they get the message.
4/19/2006
