middleofnowhere

I’ve frequently heard two different expressions used to describe countries that are composed of many different nations, cultures and so on - “melting pot” or “mosaic”. The implications of being a melting pot, are that once you become a citizen of that country, you will eventually be assimilated into their language, culture and other aspects of what makes them, well, them. A mosaic is different in that you are not only allowed, but expected to maintain your individual cultural identity and add it to what already exists - thereby enriching the overall product. I don’t have particularly strong objections to either approach, although I do think that “mosaic” sounds a lot prettier.

Within Canada, it seems that Ottawa is starting to represent the mosaic that most Canadians see our country as, although it is more political differences than cultural ones that are creating our patchwork collection of MP’s. Each party seems to be becoming more and more regionalized and many people feel that the distribution between overall popular support and the seat count is skewed, to say the least.

Many people have suggested that we need to move to some form of proportional government, most vocally, the Green Party who despite receiving over 6 percent of the vote nationally still have zero representatives in parliament. The other side of the coin is seen when despite receiving only 10 percent of the national vote, the Bloc Quebecois have forty-nine seats - good enough for third place nationally.

Are more parties like the Bloc going to rise to prominence on the national scene? It’s not likely, as many smaller provinces simply don’t have the seat count for there to be much of a point. A Bloc type party in Newfoundland would send 7 reps with a clean sweep. PEI? 4 reps. Not exactly earth-shattering.

So is a system where popular vote was used to delegate seat count the answer? Given the current state of Canadian politics, it would likely put an end to the thoughts of a majority governments for the foreseeable future. It may also see the concept of coalition governments become a reality in Canada. There are certainly pros and cons to each of these situations.

The reality is that seeing proportional representation is about as likely as seeing bigfoot. As long as the two major players, the Liberals and Conservatives have realistic chances of forming majority governments, they have little to no reason to support such a change as they have nothing to gain.

By nature, the party system is adversarial and as such, working together is a foreign concept between parties. Maybe a few more rounds of minority government will help them to remember some basic lessons - play nice, cooperate and always remember to take turns.

Taking the time to express my thoughts on the general state of affairs in Canada’s political universe has helped me to really organize some thoughts, which is pretty beneficial….I think. Something that has dawned on me is how little I know about the particular thoughts and beliefs of the people that represent me in the various levels of government.

As I’ve previously stated, there are many different points of view on every issue and the idea that one party or individual is going to share the exact opinions as you on all of the issues is pretty far fetched. More importantly, I don’t know why we would expect that all of the politicians within the same party share all of the same opinions as the other members of the party.

I’m going to start putting my money where my mouth is, in a manner of speaking, and find out more about my representatives. I’m sure that there are things I will agree with them on and things I will disagree with them on, and it’s time to educate myself about the specifics.

There are vital things within the control of government that should matter to us all and that do affect us on a daily basis. Health care, education, child care, the economy - all of these areas are directly influenced by government choices and the fundamental beliefs of those in power. Rather than disagree with someone solely based on the colour of their signs or the leader of your party, find out more about the individual. You might be surprised…I know I hope I will be.

Something that has really annoyed me of late is the way we are manipulated from speaking or voting our consciences by the powers that be.

A prime example of this can usually be seen in elections when a politician uses fear as a reason to vote for them, rather than their beliefs or their party’s platforms.

In Atlantic Canada, a common theme used by Conservative candidates was to tell constituents that it would be better to be represented by a member of the governing party as opposed to a member of one of the opposition parties. Is this any way to garner support? Or worse, is fear of retribution a good reason to support one candidate over another?

Whenever I hear of these tactics, I always ask myself “Where is the outrage?” As parents, we always encourage our children to be individuals and to have their own opinions. Would we tolerate someone telling our kids, “You’d best side with the bully at school, because if you’re not on his side, you could be the next target.”? Of course not, the very notion of it would be sickening.

Sadly, this tactic has become commonplace in politics for one reason and one reason only - people know that it is actually a viable threat. It’s common knowledge that regardless which party has been in power, that regions represented by the government side have always seemed to be treated better. Should you be lucky enough to have a minster as your MP, all the better.

Why do the vast majority of Canadians, who are not represented by the government side tolerate this? Are we going to make our own voices heard? Or stand shoulder to shoulder with the bully for what they define as “the greater good”?

No sooner had our federal election ended when the knives came out for Stephane Dion. Interestingly, even though pretty much every party did not match it’s pre-election goals, only one party was sure to string up their leader, throw him under the bus or whatever other euphimism you would like to use - the Liberal Party.

Stephen Harper was able to survive the fact that he couldn’t lead his party to a majority government. Jack Layton’s followers are seemingly thrilled at their 37 seat performance, even though it leaves them once again in fourth place in the country. Gilles Duceppe continues to exist in Quebec.

Ever since the days of Jean Chrétien versus Paul Martin it seems like the Liberals are as divided within as they are with the Conservatives. With each and every scrap that comes to light Stephen Harper must actually be giggling away in his office. I know I would be.

It’s much the same situation we witnessed when the Conservatives themselves were split. The Reform Party, The Canadian Alliance Party, the bizarre temporary offshoot of MP’s headed by Chuck Strahl. The right had so many options that it seemed like the Liberals might rule forever. Obviously that wasn’t the case…

So now here we are with an emboldened Harper, a more than lame duck Dion hanging on for some reason and the also-rans (as much as it pains me to say) Layton and Duceppe.

How much longer are Canadians going to be resigned to their fate of flipping a coin?  Regardless of the outcome of the Liberal leadership race, it is going to be a challenge for a new leader to really establish themselves and the Liberal Party as a serious option. They aren’t as left as the NDP or the Greens and certainly not as right as the Conservatives. More and more the “centre” as they call themselves, are viewed more as fence sitters. Abstaining from so many votes in the last session of parliament did nothing to dispell that particular notion.

One can only hope that for the sake of their own party, the Liberals can actually be unified after this process. Although, with recent history, you’ll excuse me if I don’t hold my breath.

Although I will admit that the party I least relate to is the one in power, I don’t mind that we have a third consecutive minority government. One thing is for sure in Canada, voters have a lot more options when it comes to deciding which political messages speak to you than our neighbours to the south.

All over the place lately, I see American politicians of both major parties talking about the need to unit America, how divided the people are and the major differences between the “liberals” and the “conservatives”. When the general public sees only two viable options, an us versus them mentality is bound to happen.

The whole idea that either word (liberal or conservative) can be used as an insult when used by the other group goes a long way to showing us the mentality that is often involved in politics.

So much time is spent pointing out the differences, that people often forget to look for the common ground between the so called left and right.

I know that historically, there have been other parties elected into high offices in the U.S. (who is the Whig Party candidate this year?) and some people still get some attention as fringe-ish third party candidates - Perot, Nader….this means you. But in Canada, it seems as though anybody who decides to take the time to form a party, not only does so, but gets taken quite seriously particularly on the provincial level.

In Quebec, mario Dumont formed the Action Democratique du Quebec (ADQ) in 1994 and in the 2007 general election formed the official opposition and helped push the Liberal government into a minority position.

In Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Part was formed in 1997 and by 2007 formed the goverment in the provincial election, adter previously rising to the oppostion seats very early into their existence.

Federally we’ve expanded from two viable parties, to four parties with over 35 seats in Ottawa and a fifth party, The Green Party having nudged into the national spotlight via their leader’s participation in the debates in the recent election campaign. In 1993, our official opposition in Ottawa was actually formed by a party running seats in one province, Quebec - the Bloc Quebecois. Their main platform, you ask? The independance of Quebec via seperation from Canada…the irony was palpable to be sure.

While the political landscape is getting somewhat crowded, it is at least comforting to know that more views are being heard and, as such, respected. So if you have a viewpoint and you feel it isn’t being represented, just wait. Or better yet, stand up and do something about it yourself.

There is nothing more frustrating than the seeing general apathy that many Canadians seem to hold towards politics.  I understand that with the various municipal, provincial and federal elections, it seems like we are constantly under a barrage of campaigns from the left, right or centre. What I don’t understand is the number of people who just can’t be bothered to participate in the process.

In our recent election the Conservatives formed the government with a whopping 37.6 percent of the popular vote nationwide. Now, in a five party (and counting) system, this result is actually fairly impressive, but to me a closer look at these numbers reveals something much more concerning. With a modern day record low for voter turnout of 59.1 percent, it means that only 22 percent of eligible voters were responsible for placing Stephen Harper and his party in the government seats.

Conventional wisdom is that low voter turnout is a symptom of voters generally feeling that the status quo is fine with them. In a completely unscientific survey of my friends, it seems as though this isn’t necessarily the case. Time and time again when I came across someone who chose not to vote the reasons where strikingly similar. In many situations, when voters are in a “legacy” seat - one which has been held by a particular candidate or party seemingly forever - people just felt that their vote didn’t really affect the outcome, so why bother?

A more common and distrubing answer comes from those people who feel that regardless of who wins the seat, or even forms the government, it doesn’t really matter one way of the other.  Canadian voters, particularly young voters, feel that regardless of who forms the government the ultimate result will be corruption, greed, scandals and broken promises.

When the governments defence of it’s actions consists of bringing up the mis-deeds of the “other guys” from their days in government or by downplaying actions that are in the best case scenario, morally grey, there are major trust issues between the representatives and the represented.

Government policy is complicated and the work being done by the men and women we have recently elected to voice our concerns is something that we need to pay more attention to and not just when an election is at hand.  It’s true that, on it’s own, one voice rarely makes a difference, but every marathon starts with a single step.