Out in Left-Centre Field

It's election time, everybody!

And we're already seeing the onslaught of posturing, extravagant promises, attack ads and defamation that are driving so many Canadians away from the ballot box. I look back and I wonder, when did it get this way? When did things get so angry and vitriolic and divisive? When did we decide to import the aggressive, blood-sport style of politics from our neighbours to the south and others around the world?

Maybe the earliest time I recall ever being aware of politics was in the late 1990s. I was still in elementary school, Jean Chretien was already a constant at the federal level, while Mike Harris had been in power in Ontario for a couple of years. One of the few things that really struck home for me was being out of school for weeks (that was great in those young days!) and seeing my teachers picketing up and down the sidewalk in front of my school, chanting and yelling and waving signs like "Stop Bill 103" and so forth.

I remember that it was vaguely defined as a "bad" thing, and I remember being disgusted when Ontario voters were so stupid as to hand Harris another majority government in 1999. That's probably when I started paying attention for good. So, in a way, did negativity draw me into politics? Was that what the people who called the shots were thinking, that it would bring greater entertainment for the masses and spur interest in politics? Well, it worked, but in the wrong way. It drew in and motivated the hard-liners and the ideologues, right and left, and has turned off moderates from across the span of political sympathies.

And the trend hasn't stopped. Stephen Harper -- who has since gathered many of the mainstays of Harris' government, like Flaherty, Clement, Baird and Giorno -- has been running some of the nastiest, most intentionally divisive parliamentary politics that I have ever seen. And the other parties, Liberal, NDP, and Bloc alike (hell, even the independents) have been ever so happy to oblige. The accusations and slander fly thick in the air and confident proclamations of party superiority are everywhere you turn. Rarely do you see MPs even permitted to vote their conscience or those of their constituents; power is ever more centralized in the leader and their circle of trusted insiders.

How is this even supposed to be appealing to the ordinary people, like me, who vote? How is that supposed to be appealing to future generations who will have to take on the burden of governance? Is that setting a good example to follow? Or is democracy itself simply being run into the ground for short-term convenience?

There are signs of hope. The proposed coalition back in 2008 showed that parties can set aside their revulsion for one another and work for a common good. Even the proposal signed by Harper, Layton and Duceppe back in 2004 was a sign that parties can come together from differing ideologies. But of course, compromise is seen as an admission of weakness, so now everyone is either swearing it off or demonizing the idea far and wide. Party supporters cannot, cannot be seen as ever admitting that their chosen parties (which are really just coalitions of individuals) are anything less than perfect or will do anything less than win outright; to say otherwise is considered to be an act of treason.

So here goes. As you've probably seen from my past words and actions, I am an NDP supporter. That's where I've been in the past; I may yet switch elsewhere but I do not see it happening. I do not see the NDP as perfect; they have a number of policies, like Senate abolition, that I don't agree with. I don't see their leader, Jack Layton, as perfect; good and competent as he is, he has made a number of mistakes in the past, like declaring his opposition to a budget without ever seeing it, or failing to sufficiently reprimand deputy leader Libby Davies after her comments that the state of Israel was illegitimate. The NDP also attracts many hard-line socialists and communists with whom I am uncomfortable; I do not believe that any single system of belief is ever the answer to our problems.

Hell, I haven't always supported the NDP; I remember the 2007 Ontario election, one of the first after I finally reached voting age at 18. The NDP candidate (Tony Crawford) in my riding (Oakville) did not impress me in the slightest; any question he was asked in a candidates' debate, he always turned to the issue of identity theft. Clearly, he was an expert on that subject, which would be of concern in a relatively affluent, middle-to-upper-class community like Oakville. But people who seek the honour of being an elected representative need to broaden their understanding and not harp on a single issue every time they are asked about diverse subjects. So, ironically enough, with my earlier Harris-era experiences fresh in my mind, I voted for the PC candidate. Strange, right? Well, the local PC candidate, Rick Byers, seemed a competent and well-rounded fellow in the few times I heard from him, while his party's leader, John Tory, was reasonable and moderate despite his ill-advised position on school funding. And why did I skip over the Liberals, you ask? I couldn't conscionably support them when they spent the entire campaign ranting about the religious school funding issue and deflecting attention from their own lacklustre record on everything else. (It helps when the media get wrapped up in their own hysteria and cheer you on like trained seals.) If you can't stand on your own record, you don't deserve to be in power; it must be earned, and it is not yours by some sort of birthright.

So no, I'm not going to tell you my chosen party is perfect. The best part of an election is that it is all up to you, the voter. I cannot tell you how to vote. The media cannot tell you how to vote. The choice is yours. Know the candidates, know the platforms, make an informed decision. Who are you most comfortable with? And are you aware and accepting of the fact that no one and no party is perfect?

A different opinion doesn't make someone your enemy. That's something too many people lose sight of far too quickly. Respect, trust and willing cooperation are absolutely necessary if we are to fix the problems that ail our beloved democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it could be a hell of a lot better if we had the will and the bravery to make it as good as we can.

By now, barring your place of residence being under a rock, you've no doubt heard about the recent threat of a fall election and how it's been averted for the time being. Michael Ignatieff's ego can wait no longer, and he wants to be Prime Minister right now, dammit, while concrete things like actual policies can apparently wait. Meanwhile, Stephen Harper pines for a majority so he can swiftly eviscerate the systems and institutions which he detests and which most Canadians (outside of Alberta) cherish, and Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have to decide what to do with themselves -- do they betray their principles and prop up Harper's government, or do they bite the bullet and send the country into a needless election that one of their rivals will likely win?

Who knows? Whichever leader and party emerges the winner in this situation, the outcome isn't going to be decided by the actions in the House of Commons. No, the battle is for the hearts and minds of Canadians, and that means the "winner" in this whole mess will be whoever has the most talented spin doctors and the most favourable media coverage. Will the Conservatives be seen as great economic managers, keeping us safe from the "traitorous" coalition horde? Will the Liberals be rewarded for finally growing a backbone, mysterious as their motives and platform may be? Will the NDP be perceived as having the courage to make Parliament work for Canadians, after blindly opposing the Conservatives for years on end? Will the Bloc still be seen as sticking up for Quebec, or will they suffer for supporting the Conservatives?

Again, who knows? It could go any one of many different ways, and I don't really have the political acumen to predict which one will prevail. It's all about public perception.

But what really struck me was the widespread, vehement protest against a possible election.

Really? We're talking about the most basic, the most simple and powerful of our abilities as the electorate. Are we so spoiled rotten that we can't even appreciate the democratic rights that our ancestors fought so long and hard to achieve? How dare we sit here and complain, while in Afghanistan and around the world, human beings are dying in the name of the rights we take for granted! What kind of an example are we setting when we look down on nations who haven't achieved real democracy while we fail to uphold it ourselves?

The stupid, it truly, truly burns.

People say we've had too many elections. Granted, they're more frequent than they usually are (historically speaking), and they are costly to stage (~$300 million today). But in a country where we have allowed the democratic process to be hijacked and perverted by the powerful few, why wouldn't we welcome the chance to exercise the single most powerful ability we, as the people, still possess? With our elected representatives forced into either following the party line or ignominious exile, the only ones with real influence between elections are those closest to the party leaders. Elections are the only time when control is really out of their hands -- and in ours. Why wouldn't we take advantage of that?

People say that "nothing's going to change" in an election. Maybe. But that's only the case if we choose to let nothing change. Where do we get this idea that an election would change nothing? That's right: polls published by the media. We think nothing will change just because the numbers are roughly the same. Sure, it's a good indicator -- but as is often said, the only poll that matters is the one on election day. There is absolutely nothing stopping us, as the voting public, from drastically altering the political landscape of this country in one day. That's what democracy is all about -- the ability to choose. However, those in power have a vested interest in making the public think nothing can or will change. They have become complacent because we have grown apathetic. So much potential, and still we let ourselves be convinced that our choices have no effect.

People say that their votes don't count. Newsflash -- they do! Plenty of ridings come right down to the wire. Furthermore, every vote cast helps fund the party that earned it. Still, it is easy to fall into the idea that every vote not cast for the winning candidate is somehow "wasted". It is a common scare tactic used by parties and candidates who are already powerful to keep people from making a different choice. The recent efforts towards electoral reform have been made with the goal of ensuring that every vote cast makes an impact. But once again, those who profit from the status quo are making every effort to scare us away from new and better possibilities.

People say that politicians' posturing and endless fighting are turning them off. Finally, a point that has some merit behind it -- today, Parliament is rife with battles over style rather than substance. Politics has become consumed with partisan manipulations and the concentration of power in the hands of a select few. Our elected representatives cannot follow their consciences or represent the views of their constituents for fear of harsh reprisal from the party leadership. Don't get me wrong, political parties aren't inherently bad (teamwork is key to success, after all), but the purposes of these organizations have been twisted to muzzle the exact rank-and-file representation that needs to be active and free in order for democracy to work properly. Good and solid policies and legislation are being brought forward, but are being buried in the endless squabbling and needlessly divisive "us against them" posturing. Real issues are being buried beneath the sheer volume of shallow finger-pointing that arises from manufactured scandals. In short, the democratic process is being held hostage by selfish pursuits.

This whole situation of apathy driven by shallow, insubstantive politics made me recall a rant by Craig Ferguson, host of the Late Late Show, himself a new American citizen, during the presidential election of late 2008. (It's a pity I can't embed videos in this blog. Oh well.) He goes on to criticize how the media are hung up on superficial talking points and are failing the public by ignoring the real issues facing the country, and how not voting is a dereliction of your rights and duties:

"This is a very important election, this one, but you would not know it from the way it's being reported. Y'know, politics is covered like show business now. On the Today Show this morning, they’re like, "Which candidate would you rather have dinner with?" Here’s an easy answer: NONE! They're politicians, I don't want dinner with you, I don't want your friendship. Here's what I want to know: what are you going to do for this country, pal? What are you gonna do? ...

... The news reports are either very tabloid-y, or they're trying to be funny like Jon Stewart, maybe because more and more people say they’re getting their news from late night TV -- which, believe me, is not a good idea. I like the Daily Show, I like Jon Stewart, I think he does a bang-up job, a great job, but let him do it. The rest of the news people, TAKE THIS JOB SERIOUSLY! This is important! ...

... Do you know what bothers me? Every election year, as well, you get the voter registration drives aimed at the young people: "Rock the vote, the vote’s crack-a-lackin'!" ... Are we so lost that we have to be sold our own democratic right? What the hell is wrong with us? What is going on? We have to "sexy up" the vote for young people? ...

... Here’s what I’m saying to you: if you don't vote, you’re a moron. I know what you're saying -- "well, not voting is a vote." No, it isn't. Not voting is just being stupid.

Voting is not sexy, voting is not hip, it’s not fashionable, it’s not a movie, it’s not a video game, all the kids ain't "doin' it". Frankly, voting is a pain in the ass, but here's a word, look it up: it is your DUTY to vote.

The foundation in this democracy is based on free people making free choices. So, young people, if you can't take your hand out of your Cheetos bag long enough to fill out a form, then you can't complain when we end up with President Sanjaya.

Listen, I'm an American. This country, as it is, at war, right now; Americans in foreign lands wearing uniforms representing this country are losing their lives. Americans here in this country are losing their homes. We have two patriotic candidates, right? They both love this country, they have different ideas about what to do with it. Learn about them, read about them, question them, listen to them. Then, on election day, exercise your sacred right as an American, and listen to yourself."

Even if he's talking about an American election, he put it miles better than I ever could. If we claim to value our democratic rights so highly, what is so wrong with us that our actions say the opposite?

From the continually falling turnout rates in our federal, provincial and even municipal elections, it's abundantly clear that Canadians are losing faith in the way politics is practised today. They want to see an end to the perpetual squabbling and partisan intolerance. They want a new way of making Parliament work, one that will include all their diverse viewpoints and that will make their voices count.

That's what makes the Canadian Youth Assembly so critical. We, as young people, as the leaders of the future, have to show that we are capable of renewing the political process and of reshaping it so that it will be the inclusive way that our fellow Canadians need and want to see. We need to show that there is cause to keep faith in our democratic system -- that tomorrow is brighter than today.

We need a better Canada. We need a Canada where people won't cringe at the very mention of an election. We need a Canada where the public is active and involved at every step of the democratic process. We need a Canada where our elected representatives are respectful of one another and are willing to work together, regardless of affiliation and disagreements, to get the very best results possible for their fellow citizens. We need a Canada where our leaders, the people in positions of power, are accountable to the people at all times. We need a Canada where our Parliament works.

That vision is not going to come into being unless people like you and I take action and show that it is possible. Together, we can. Together, we will achieve more.

Hey, everyone.

I'm sorry I haven't been so diligent in keeping things coming regularly. I'm back at the University of Waterloo for a summer term, thanks to co-op in the winter; and with that has come lectures, labs, tutorials, homework, assignments, quizzes, tests, impending midterms, interviews for the next co-op term, residence events, class events ... oh, and living, breathing and maybe sleeping in and around it all. I have yet to find a satisfactory balance.

And then there's the CYA. I'd love to do more if I could, but Engineering schoolwork being what it is, I'd be reckless to do so. I'm not even a CYA candidate, if you can believe it. I may yet take the plunge, but not knowing the date of the upcoming election makes a big difference when one follows a four-months-school, four-months-co-op system. It's chaotic, and even when the CYA does hold its first election in 2010, I'll already be 21 (and thus I won't be in the candidate age range for too long).

(Don't worry, the regional explorations of the 177 riding system will continue soon. Just not today.)

* * * * *

And then there's the drama among the CYA members themselves. There was a bit of a furor sparked recently over a longtime conservative who wanted to run for the ANDY (a social democratic/progressive party) in the CYA's Model Parliament, as a bit of an "experience" (his words). This did not go over well -- quelle surprise. We decided to at least consider his offer, which unfortunately rankled multiple long-standing members of the ANDY whom this conservative had feuded with over his long time with the CYA and the old YPC. He got hammered on by other conservatives for being too left-wing. We got hammered on by other parties for being too tolerant. In the end, this ex-CYPCer proved he couldn't show humility and put those old feuds six feet under, and we rejected his offer. He subsequently left the CYA, period.

The end result? The damage was done. The CYPC has plunged into yet another contentious leadership race. We (the ANDY) lost at least three long-standing members -- two over considering his offer, and another who was put off by the drama and posturing. Make no mistake: as the leading voice in wanting to give a man a chance, I'm still kicking myself over even letting it get so out of hand. Does tolerance really have to cost this much? Or are we just too prone to kicking others when they're vulnerable?

I'm not going to lie -- the whole issue has made me long for the day when the CYA can recapture the momentum the old YPC once had and when these posturing, melodramatic few can be kept in check by the tolerant majority whom I know are out there somewhere. We need to take the "crisis du jour" mentality and stick it where we will never dig it up again. At the risk of sounding cliche, can't we all just get along? Does it have to be about the egos and the rivalries and the feuds of the past? Are we here to backslide into the flawed, overly partisan mentalities today's political leaders espouse, or are we here to bring a new and more inclusive attitude to the high honour of public office?

It's up to us to decide -- and we don't decide with words, but with actions.

* * * * *

On a totally separate note, I bet you all heard about the election out in B.C. -- the one where nothing changed (hmm ... 2008 anyone? sound familiar?) and the MSM are singing the praises of the voters for rejecting electoral reform. Never mind that the media claim 39% for STV as a "crushing defeat", while 37% under FPTP nearly gets you a majority government. Never mind that almost half of the B.C. electorate couldn't be bothered to cast a ballot. The good ol' MSM could at least try addressing the holes in their scare tactics -- but that would require innovation and coherent thought. But that, really, isn't my point.

Lost amid the furor over that vote is the fact that Nova Scotia is having an election too. And the most recent polls may surprise you: it's a three-way race. Yes, likely a minority government -- but one more likely to prove such things can work in the interests of all. Believe me, I'll be up late on the 9th, watching the results crawl in. The national media seem to have no interest in covering it, but I should think it will be far more interesting and instructive than B.C.'s election could ever claim.