Canadians have experienced a number of political rollercoaster rides during the last two weeks. As of today, April 10 2011, all parties have presented their platforms and Canadians are identifying shortcomings, ambiguity, and practicality of each party’s pledge to Canada.
From my perspective, these platforms do not really act as a comprehensive blueprint for change. This might be due to my lack of knowledge in the field of economics. Having said that and having read in-depth analyses from economists, one aspect of all platforms disturbs me a little.
All party platforms lack a fundamental self-reflective examination of methodologies and inherent biases. I believe having a self-reflective approach not only gives credibility to the platforms but also allows for discussion between the parties as well as between politicians and Canadians. Of course, this is assuming that our political system is open for a meaningful dialogue on important issues.
It is my belief that having no mention on the specific processes through which these platforms were crafted leaves Canadians in the dark. First of all, how many of voters are actually able to interpret and assess the date presented by the parties. Second, platforms seem to deal only with money allocation, inherently failing to address the root causes of important issues such as poverty and inequality. The problem is answered by $xxx rather than an approach to understanding the problems from within. Targeting spending based on a comprehensive understanding of each social problem would probably be more cost effective too.
My next post will address the Media Consortium and its implications on the 2011 Federal Election.
Thank you.
1 comment:
Post a Comment