Set aside political pride, PM

There are justifications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s staunch (some would say stubborn) refusal to meet with Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, who has been on a hunger strike since Dec. 11. None of them hold water politically. In this instance, yet again, the Conservatives have blundered into a deadfall trap of their own making. Extrication will be difficult. However, they have no option but to try.

Let’s consider, first, why a prime minister might be loath to entertain an impromptu “summit” meeting with an aboriginal band leader, selfappointed to a national role, under pressure of her threatened selfharm. The arguments are straightforward.

A hunger strike is always a public ploy, on the part of the one fasting, to embarrass a stronger opponent into making concessions or displaying weakness. The fast is nominally an act of passive resistance; in fact it is a straight power reversal, made morally and politically effective by the willingness of the hunger striker to suffer, or even die, for his or her beliefs. The roles appear to be pre-appointed — in this case, with Harper as the loser.

Moreover, Spence herself has no authority to speak for First Nations generally. She is the chief of one of 600 bands. Depending on the outcome of this protest, she may eventually be in a position to take on a greater national role, which could be sanctioned democratically. She’s not there yet. Granting Spence “national” negotiating status would in effect sideline and undermine the Assembly of First Nations, led by the elected Shawn Atleo. The federal government’s relationship with First Nations is already complex and difficult enough, without introducing new layers of “ex-officio” leadership.

Finally, where does it end? Were Harper to meet with Spence under pressure of a hunger strike, some argue, it will soon be open season on senior politicians, as they’re beset by activists for all manner of causes, worthy or otherwise, using all manner of pressure tactics.

Here’s why those arguments fail in this case, it seems to me.

For starters, Stephen Harper does not suffer from a perception that he is personally weak. The opposite holds true. His Achilles heel has always been, and continues to be, a perception that he is cold, aloof, controlling and uncommunicative. People who know Harper personally say there’s a great deal more to him than that. But for whatever reason, perhaps personal shyness or fatigue, his earlier efforts (remember the Beatles covers?) to humanize his image have all but disappeared. It’s as though he no longer cares how he is perceived.

That is a serious mistake, and one that increasingly will impede his government’s freedom of movement as this term progresses. He can ameliorate it through visible, personal acts of kindness that belie his reputation as a cold fish. In other words, for Harper, a strategic display of “bend” would be a plus, not a minus.

To the second point — that of elevating Spence to a national status she has not earned — there is a simple remedy: The prime minister pays her a visit, but not in his capacity as prime minister. He lets it be known through aides that he is acting as a private individual, out of simple compassion for a person who, however one may disagree with her methods, has her people’s best interests at heart. Perhaps, as a nod to Atleo’s status as grand chief, the two drop in on Spence together. As with the declaration of the Québécois’ “national” status by Parliament in 2006, such moves can be made symbolically, and can be understood as such.

With respect to copycat “protests,” Harper’s people need only assert ways in which the meeting with Spence is unique: To non-aboriginals they can stress her aboriginal status. To other aboriginal activists they can insist the concession was a one-off, done for purely humanitarian reasons. Calls for further “summit” meetings could be defused by a national conference or Royal Commission, intended to offer up lasting solutions to aboriginal poverty. We need this discussion anyway, quite obviously.

One way or another though, Harper must concede. Here’s why: This has the potential to drag on. Spence is wisely drinking fish broth, tea and lemon water, preserving her strength. The longer she endures, the greater a symbol she becomes to aboriginal people who are, rightly and justifiably, tired of living in destitute conditions, with little hope of improvement.

This is, at the end of the day, the biggest gap in Harper’s armour here: Misery on reserves, abetted by the explicitly racist Indian Act and the reserve system itself, is a fact. Reasonable people can disagree about remedies — not about the underlying conditions. Those conditions alone justify peaceful protest.

Harper should have met with Spence immediately, nipping her movement in the bud. Doing so now will be deemed a climbdown. Nevertheless, he must do so. The alternative — to allow this woman to put her life in jeopardy, and perhaps die, for the sake of preserving political pride — cannot be contemplated.