Yesterday, the Federal Budget, which we have all been waiting for, was finally presented.
The Liberals rejected the budget and stated that the Conservative budget does not reflect the appropriate priorities of Canadians. Budget rejected.
The Bloc Quebecois also rejected the budget; it did not deliver on the Bloc’s expectations and Conservative promises. Budget rejected.
The New Democrats stated that the budget did not deliver on their requests. Jack Layton however seemed to have left an open door for possible further amendments to the budget. Budget rejected in its presented form.
After everything has been said and done, Flaherty states that the budget is not up for negotiation. What is wrong with this picture? Yes, there might have been election strategies incorporated into the budget by the Conservatives. But setting the elections aside, what really is wrong with this whole budget issue?
I understand the debates that took place yesterday among the parties as revolving around a form of communication that is not open for dialogue. When the main focus of any debate is that of winning and/or losing, all parties lose; and we all lose.
When generally listening to the political rhetoric as they take place in the House of Commons and on the media, one can identify a lack of dialogue between political parties. There is no meaningful engagement of politicians on issues that matter to all Canadians. Most often the rhetoric is located outside of the context within which it needs to find itself. Partisanship is often prioritized above the context of Canadian lives.
There are issues on which all parties could be argued to find agreement and meaning: economy, social welfare, etc. These same political issues, rather than becoming arenas for dialogue and communication, have become boundaries and structures for isolation and tools for undemocratic monologues.
Partisanship is so deeply embedded within the daily political discourse that meaningful understanding becomes a rarity. There are four major partisan voices that dominate the political sphere. But to each voice there are only one perspective, one ideology, one meaning.
During a course on Everyday Communication, I came across an author and theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975), who claims that a monologic or one-voice discourse tends to recognize only itself and its object, is a form of discourse that does not recognize other people’s words nor alternative perspectives (Bakhtin, 1963). I assume that I can identify each voice of each party as a monologic discourse not open for communication.
What would be an obvious attempt to a resolution about issues all parties consider important?
As Bakhtin identifies that flaws of a monologic discourse, he has also provided an alternative: dialogic discourse, which I understood ass a process through which one tests one’s own ideas and perspectives through the active engagement in dialogue with another. This process is an ongoing process of understanding from which one’s perspective will never remain the same but rather is constantly transformed through communication, negotiation, and active attempt to understanding.
So in a word: Dialogue.
In the public and political sphere, leaders who use phrases such as “not open for negotiation” reflect a particular ideology. A true democratic society begins with leaders who apply democratic processes within their own acts of communication.
We hear all parties yell out words such as healthcare, middle class, employment and economy. And yes, all political parties might have allocated resources to these issues. But where I see a disconnection is perhaps in truly understanding the issues themselves. It is no longer about the specific dollar allocation. It is about sitting down and coming up with workable definitions for each and every major issue that affect Canadians. How can we determine and agree on a budget where the definitions of issues have never been negotiated?
No comments:
Post a Comment