Phendrana Drifts

Like many I am not happy with what went down in Toronto over the weekend, and I can’t seem to stop thinking about it. My disappointment is at so many levels and so many different people. While I thought about the order, I wouldn’t read too much into it – there is enough blame that I’m not sure we have to portion it out, just know that lots of Canadians are disappointed in you.

To the protesters who destroyed property, threatened people, and committed dozens of crimes this weekend – I am upset that you perverted an event for your own ends, ends that society doesn’t support and employing tactics that hurt dozens of people and businesses, big and small. You provided the justification for the security and your provocations invited a police response that was not otherwise needed. Your actions are not just illegal, they are not wanted and I condemn the acts.

To the police, if you can’t do your job without violating an individual’s Charter rights, we have a problem. I don’t want to pretend that I understand the legal intricacies of your job this weekend, and I recognize that situation in downtown Toronto could have escalated to a point where it could have spiraled out of control, but when I watch the video above I can’t help but think that you’ve gone too far. It’s offensive. It’s more than unfortunate. And I believe based on what I’ve read and heard that it was unnecessary, as were many of the 900 arrests you made over the weekend.

To the officials who closed the sanctioned protest point at Queen’s Park – citizens need to have a place to voice their dissent. It’s a basic human right. I recognize that safety concerns mean that the point cannot be right in front of the convention centre, but if so you need to provide an alternate space. Dispersing that group then placed hundreds in the difficult place of deciding whether or not to exercise their rights somewhere else – somewhere that threatens the security of the conference you’re protecting.

To the people who organized alternative conferences to the G20 – perhaps you are the least to blame – but be more active in providing an alternative dialogue to the closed system of the G20. Make it real, make it accessible, and make it clear that you condemn rather than condone the destruction of your city.

To the assembled heads of states and heads of governments of the G20 – maybe this roving conference idea isn’t working the way you want – you are giving the impression of disenfranchisement while creating logistical nightmares. I don’t know what the solution is, but there are those who said if you had it in Toronto in January there would have been fewer problems. If you had held it in northern Ontario in the winter there would be even less. As well, on the content of what you do – ensure you are paying attention to what your citizens are saying. Your agenda is not universally shared, and while I applaud your efforts to protect our monetary system and the economic recovery it needs to be defended not through truncheons but through rhetoric and leadership.

Finally, to the mainstream media and social media covering the conference – a lot actually happened in the discussions, discussions that you should have reported on. The stories on the protests and near riots are important, but the lawlessness of Toronto on Saturday pales in comparison to a good Montreal Stanley Cup riot. The next morning La Presse’s headline was still that Montreal won the cup. Your attachment to the images of the protests fed the violence and ignored the issues. And you did so salaciously. It took me ages to find out what the more violent protesters were in fact protesting against – and I had to find out on the kind of sites that cause CSIS to put a note on my file, rather than reading any story from the Globe or the Star.

What a terrible weekend. A black mark for the City of Toronto.

Like most political hacks in Canada, I read with interest the rumours, apparently well-sourced and highly placed, that the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party are discussing what a merger would look like between their two parties. The original CBC story is here, and since that time Bob Rae has come out to provide some official denials. And even within the original story heavyweights like David Herle speak against it, as well as a fairly clear quote from Michael Ignatieff – but denials aside, I saw Peter McKay make similar denials about mergers that were equally if not more clear and he still has a job, so I wouldn’t put too much in the public denials. That doesn’t mean I think a merger will happen, because I don’t.

If it were to happen though what would it look like? And what would change in Canadian politics?

If the two parties merged for the transparently obvious reason of winning the next election and kicking out Stephen Harper from Sussex Drive I think it would go along way to taking Canada down the path to a two-party system. I would even hazard a guess that it may lead us to a formalized two party system like the United States has. I’m not necessarily opposed to a de facto two-party state, but leaving the power to reform the electoral system in the hands of only the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States hasn’t necessarily served that country well. Here in Canada, while I remain a fan of the electoral finance changes, my main knock against them is how hard it will be to effectively start a new party. In order to get public money for your party you need votes. In order to gain votes, you need the ads and organization money can buy. In order to get public money… you get the picture. In a world with only two parties plus the Bloc the system will serve to entrench itself possibly to the point that we will never see a new party develop.

I also worry that the system will become more bitter, more partisan and more the things we hate about politics. I must confess, when the idea of a merger on the right was proposed I didn’t see that shift coming. Since 2003 the level of rhetoric and partisanship has steadily increased within the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada – well beyond the barbs thrown during the time of the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservatives. They knew who the enemy was and knew what would work to gain power. The Liberal Democrats would be no different – never really working with the Conservatives to govern, never letting up in painting the Conservatives like demons.

In my mind the best thing about the CPC merger was the end of the one party plus system of governance, where only the Liberals had a competitive shot at forming government. It increased the options for Canadian governance, making elections matter more. The proposed merger does the opposite, decreasing the possibilities for Canadian governance and entrenching that choice.

The merger makes any form of coalition government impossible (Between who? The Bloc and one of the two main parties?) and it reduces the flexibility of Parliament.

I hope the two parties think carefully about the path they are going down. Coalitions, especially when done with greater legitimacy and foresight than the attempt two years ago, offer an opportunity of interest and compromise that I dread will be lost in the new two party system. And not just coalitions, but parliamentary cooperation and the diversity of interactions between civil society and political parties.

As I was wrong about exactly the kind of political situation that developed from the right-wing merger I may be wrong about the consequences of this one. But I don’t see it leading Canadians to the centre, rather to two polarized extremes.

I found this article in the Globe and Mail rather interesting, Canada the teacher as U.K. prepares for budget blitzkrieg, and I thought it was interesting that the accomplishments the British are pointing to are in fact from our period of Liberal governance rather than the present Conservative minority government.

And it made me think about Jean Chrétien’s legacy, and who will ultimately own that legacy. With what appears to be the final demise of Brian Mulroney’s reputation the legacy of Chrétien appears to be the only thing left of value from the past. And the article made me wonder if it was sufficiently up for grabs that the Conservatives could try and claim it.

Not directly of course. But certainly the Liberals, starting with Martin’s disastrous time at the helm, have introduced a fair amount of distance from their former leader. And ultimately know that as much as Chrétien was operating with his own values and political instincts, the drive to the centre and putting strong economic policy (re: right-wing) at the heart of Canadian politics was as much Chrétien’s pragmatism as it was Manning’s Reform party nipping on the heels.

In any case, the time of Chrétien appears to be the last time many were proud of our federal scene and simply attributing it to majority governments and stability doesn’t sufficiently explain it away. I would imagine that if the Liberals don’t take advantage in a meaningful way of their strong economic past then the Conservatives will continue to bully them around in the polls, especially on those questions of “Who do you trust most to manage Canada’s economy?”