Fetishism of Partisanship

There are important policies that should be discussed during elections. Within the increasingly complex Canadian society, elections pose a difficult time for our leaders to set priorities.

One has to accept the fact that not all issues will be addressed. Some policies will remain the same, others will be negotiated upon for the benefit of some and detriment of others.

Policies are fetishized as though they will be set once and for all in stone.  Candidates constantly present ultimatums diving issues into unpractical polarities. The choices are framed as though all Canadians have lived merely for this moment of choice, after which the elected candidate will remain in power as an uncontested dictator.

This election does not pose the end of political life.  There will be other elections down the road. There will be other candidates. This is not the end of politics; it is in the author's opinion a new beginning, a redefinition of politics that centers around democracy, collaboration, and humanity.

This marks an important historical moment. Our country has been injected with the revolutionary spirit as experienced in the Middle East and Africa. Democracy has become a fundamental issue voters are advocating whether politicians care to address it or not.

The policies that parties are addressing become overwhelming and complex as some address the interest of particular groups and might not resonate will the wider public.

The one common denominator is for all voters, the candidates. And although people may not care what I have to say, I decided to post what I truly think of each of them:

Stephen Harper

Absolute partisanship summarizes my view of him. From debates taking place in the House of Commons to the present electoral campaign messages, Harper’s view of politics is quite concerning: it is an either or approach, a zero sum game, lacking the space and time required to reflect on issues.

Harper’s strategy of polarization is a reductive approach. Either ...or… does not leave much room for alternatives. He does not gives us meaningful choices.

Harper leaves much to wonder. With policies and debates within Parliament, one finds Harper seldom providing meaningful arguments for his stance (i.e. corporate tax cuts, Bev Oda). When addressed with a question, is his habit to undermine the very essence of the question and resort to reiteration, word by word.

He is not an open communicator, and thus, he is not transparent in his processes of governing our nation. He seems to portray a level of selective amnesia, symptomatic of someone who finds him/herself guilty, refusing often to ignore the very reasons for which this election is to take place.

He advocates blind partisanship as though he were advocating a cult. As politicians leave parties to join others, we have to understand that politics is larger than political parties. As ideas evolve and as external factors make apparent that the essence of living is a dynamic process full of changes and motions, Harper’s approach is not only questionable in the opinion of the writer but much more importantly, politically dangerous.

Michael Ignatieff

The more I listen to Ignatieff, the more similar to Harper he becomes. Ignatieff too proposes weak choices with his egocentric claim that only he will be able to defeat Harper’s government. There is not much reference to his party. 

Ignatieff’s constant focus on himself also leaves much to be desired. I am afraid he might become a leader who undermines the legitimacy of his opponents and opposing arguments. If in power, the author predicts, Ignatieff would not provide much variation from the ways of Conservatives in Parliament.

A leader who does not wish to work with others (through coalition), is a leader who is to replace another who is yet the same. The Conservative minority government crumbled due to this, and should Ignatieff forget this and not change the very undemocratic practices he once cried against, we should not expect much change.

Harper and Ignatieff are taking us on a road to bi-partisan political system.

There is hope.

The important factor to consider for this election is that our society is not static. Our society is in constant motion as each and every one of us is dynamic; we are all dynamic individuals. This is not a life or death situation as these leaders imply. Inert and stagnant ideals of partisanship do not have to be our only choice. We can vote for change. We can make demands. As our lives are shaped and reshaped by personal and external circumstances, so does the shape of politics. To even think that one blindly belongs in mind and body to a political party can only be compared to belonging to a cult from which there will never be an escape. 

Whichever party wins, if Canadians closely watch and participate, political ultimatums of fear reiterated in electoral rhetoric suddenly become meaningless. Canadians can make changes happen now, and as Canadians we will be able to hold our next government accountable.

We need a government that is constantly questioned and held accountable. Obviously, the news media and its claim to impartiality and objectivity, falls short in its role of watchdogs.

Perhaps a more organized impartial nonpartisan group of citizens should take the role of political watchdogs that has once been celebrated as the democratic prerequisite of journalism.