Warren Kinsella

bio

words

latest musings

top ten

nasty past

contact

sfh

facebook

Books

Speeches

Politics

Extremism

Articles

The 5 Million Club

In a democracy, the will of the people is supreme. It has to be.

So we are reminded by the neo-conservative Irving Kristol, among others. However much Canada’s democratic institutions may be imperfect - and as frustrating as electoral contests may sometimes be, particularly for those on the losing side - they are effectively all that separates us from the mob. To the likes of Kristol, the democratic expressions of the people are inviolate; the judgment of all of a nation’s citizens is the sine qua non of the nation itself.

Whatever you may think of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, then, this much is true: in November 2000, more than five million registered voters - nearly 41 per cent of the electorate - indicated their preference for the political party led by him. Not the parties of Stockwell Day or Joe Clark. Not the loose coalition of Liberal malcontents now pledging fealty to Paul Martin.

The party Canadians chose to form government was the one led by Jean Chrétien, as had been the case twice before, in 1993 and 1997. And there can be no doubt, at all, that Canadians were aware of the identity of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in the Fall of 2000: in television advertisements, in newspaper stories, in campaign literature, in speeches and on billboards, the face and name of Jean Chrétien were everywhere. The policies and plans of the Liberal Party, in every instance, in every public utterance, were inextricably linked to Jean Chrétien.

Five million voters thought about that, and him. And then they trooped to polling stations, to endorse the party led by Jean Chrétien. They chose Mr. Chrétien, and not anyone else, to again be their Prime Minister, giving him more seats in the House of Commons than he won in 1997. Overwhelmingly, Canadians expressed their trust in his vision and experience.

Few reporters, these days, want to discuss that kind of manifestation of democracy. They are much more interested in the pithy “democratic deficit” phrase now being bandied about by the partisans of Paul Martin, and Mr. Martin himself.

The disingenuous “democratic deficit” alliteration, shined to a lustrous finish in focus groups and backroom talking points, is revealing, although probably not in the way that Mr. Martin’s acolytes would hope. In recent days, Tony Valeri, the Liberal MP who represents Stoney Creek, has been assigned to give it meaning. Mr. Valeri, we are told, has been preparing a paper about democracy for discussion at his party’s caucus in Chicoutimi on August 21 and 22. Mr. Valeri, it should also be noted, is an avowed fan of Mr. Martin, and is all for empowering backbench MPs.

Few of us have been permitted to examine the contents of Mr. Valeri’s document about democracy and Parliamentary reform. So we do not, for example, know whether he and Mr. Martin regret the expulsion from the Liberal caucus of John Nunziata, who had the effrontery to vote against one of Mr. Martin’s budgets. Equally, we don’t know, yet, whether Mr. Valeri intends to condemn the fact that - in the past three years or so - Mr. Martin and his staff worked diligently to defeat virtually every private members’ bill or motion brought forward on Finance matters. (Running total since October 1999: supported three backbench suggestions, opposed 24.)

No, all we know about Mr. Valeri’s “democracy” document, in fact, is what he has said about it recently to the Ottawa bureau chief of the National Post. In the resulting news story, the author of Mr. Martin’s position on democratic reform stated, on the record, that Mr. Chrétien’s policies regarding gun control and the Kyoto climate change treaty were “at odds with country” - and, ipso facto, both could have been prevented with Mr. Martin’s package of democratic reforms. Warming to his subject, Mr. Valeri goes on to seemingly characterize gun control and Kyoto as “a mess,” quote unquote. (Mr. Martin’s position on these two policy items, along with gay rights and other topics, remains resolutely unclear at the time of this writing.)

Au contraire, Mr. Valeri: in every region of Canada, gun control and Kyoto - far from being “at odds” with the country - remain immensely popular with the vast majority of Canadians. It is revealing, as noted above, that democracy requires modification in order that Mr. Martin’s champions can prevent gun control and Kyoto. Revealing, and sad.

Democracy, as the likes of Irving Kristol and others have noted, is about choices. Less than two years ago, more than five million Canadians chose Jean Chrétien, and no one else, to lead them.

How, in less than two years, did the democratic judgment of five million Canadians become secondary to that of a few hundred Liberal hacks? It is a question that requires an answer, but you can bet that Tony Valeri will be in no rush to answer it.

All contents copyright 2006 warrenkinsella.com.
No reproduction whatsoever, in any form, without permission.