Governments easily forget they answer to us
It’s to be expected that some tension will exist between governments that see it as easiest to exercise power without challenge, and the institutions — including media, opposition and citizens — which seek to hold them to account.
But it’s worth pointing out how the balance between those forces continues to tilt in favour of the former — to the point where we’ve come to accept as normal a constant offensive against counterweights to power.
And we should be careful to note how that state of affairs is antithetical to the public interest in ensuring that governments work for us rather than themselves.
The most prominent current example of a political leader’s hostility to counterbalances is of course Donald Trump’s treatment of the U. S. media.
Trump and his surrogates have branded as “fake news” true stories that happen to conflict with his interests and called for journalists to stop doing their job of holding government to account. Trump has gone beyond general institutional attacks to call for the harassment and firing of specific reporters when it has suited his purposes.
Canada’s leaders haven’t been so blatant in trying to undermine the role of the press and of other forces that should hold them to account.
But they also offer plenty of examples of the same phenomenon.
When caught using his office to push legislation which enriched him personally while threatening the retirement security of workers, federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau responded by arguing that he shouldn’t have to answer either to journalists or to the opposition.
Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott has taken to Twitter to attack reporters and columnists for offering reminders of the Trudeau government’s neglect of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders requiring fairness in child welfare funding.
It’s noteworthy that a government that makes a show of supporting reconciliation — including the calls to action of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that highlighted the need to acknowledge the contribution of government policies to disparities in health and welfare — wants to base its position on the selective disappearance of history.
On a provincial level, the Saskatchewan Party has tried to shut down both media coverage and public investigation of the Global Transportation Hub scandal.
British Columbia Premier John Horgan has followed up a dubious decision to continue with his predecessor’s Site C dam boondoggle by talking about his government’s plans to set aside activism in favour of administration. ( Contrast that to the oft- cited response of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to arguments for anti- discrimination legislation which faced political opposition: rather than minimizing the role of activism, he encouraged proponents of the plan to “go out and make me do it.”)
It’s fair enough for governments to defend their positions, particularly when there’s room to correct ( or at least provide an alternative interpretation of ) information coming from other sources.
But it’s quite another to try to use the power of the state to undercut the fundamental role of journalists, opposition politicians and the general public in holding power to account.
And the point where our political leaders think we answer to them rather than the other way around is exactly the time when they most need to be reminded how the dynamic needs to work.
Greg Fingas is a Regina lawyer, blogger and freelance political commentator from a progressive
NDP perspective since 2005.