Dodged questions erode Canadians’ confidence
It was, unmistakably, a rebuke — though delivered sotto voce. Preston Manning, the grand vizier of Canadian conservatism and the man who gave Prime Minister Stephen Harper his start, doesn’t take the robocalls scandal lightly, or dismiss it as a malicious confection of the opposition parties.
“Any political strategy, tactic or technology which deliberately employs a lie to misdirect or mislead a voter is deplorable ethically and for the damage it does to the democratic process and public confidence in all parties and politicians,” Manning told a blue-chip crowd of conservative thinkers, strategists, current and former politicians on the weekend.
Ouch. Robocall- scandal minimizers, take that. And Manning has a solution: Political parties should train their people in “ethical politics” and the “ethical use” of new political technologies, including automated calling and, of course, social media.
Only then, Manning said, will politicians be able to overcome the crushing mistrust, “virtual contempt,” to use his words, in which they are held by most citizens. (The latter point is backed up by data, as if more were needed: A new Manning Centre poll, released Friday, asked respondents to describe politicians in Canada as honest or dishonest. Nearly seven in 10 chose dishonest.)
Manning is right, of course — as far as he goes. But he doesn’t go far enough, it seems to me. There’s more to it than training in campaign ethics or the protocol of bearding an opponent on Twitter. There’s the matter of lying. Politicians would be held in higher esteem if they stopped lying — or engaging in the lie’s cowardly cousin, the deliberate avoidance of truth. Wouldn’t they?
For weeks now observers have watched, in an agonized stupor, as the government rags the puck on robocalls, dodging and ducking and avoiding questions with practised, dogged efficiency. It’s a rare day indeed, in question period, that a straight question elicits a straight answer. Indeed, as interim Liberal leader Bob Rae has noted, with obviously growing weariness, it hardly ever happens.
But here’s the thing: I remember Rae, in his political infancy, as premier of Ontario. When in government and beset by controversy, he didn’t answer tricky questions either. He waved them off. The federal Liberals? Dust off your copy of Hansard, circa 2005, and look up any one of dozens of Commons skirmishes about the sponsorship scandal, or the rendition and torture of Maher Arar. The federal Liberals were prolific bobbers and avoiders.
Liberal media specialists, just like their Tory and New Democrat counterparts, know that the best way to avoid a damaging clip on the evening news is to ensure your principal never utters a defensive word, no matter the question. If the New Democrats manage somehow to unseat the Harper Conservatives in 2015, they won’t answer direct questions either. That’s just not how it’s done in 2012.
And yet, and yet: Must it be that way?
Many veteran politicians, perhaps most, would say yes. One reason for the soul-destroying banality of what passes for debate in Ottawa is that being honest can get you fired, or voted out of office. It’s only rare leaders, gifted individuals, who can speak spontaneously and frankly routinely, naturally, without getting themselves in trouble constantly. Pierre Trudeau was like that, for awhile. So was Ralph Klein, former premier of Alberta. So was Frank Mckenna, former premier of New Brunswick.
But the rest? Even U.S. President Barack Obama, a gifted speaker, sticks to his carefully crafted scripts. Email, Twitter, blogs and newspaper online comment spaces are incubators for semi-literate invective, much of it directed at politicians. Small wonder, given the toxic soup in which they work, that so many politicians hesitate to answer a straight question with a straight answer. They don’t consider it to be worth the risk.
But cynicism is not a solution, as the Manning Centre poll makes clear. The status quo, whatever its causes, isn’t working. Rather it is inexorably eroding confidence in politicians, and in the political process, to the detriment of democracy. It is obvious to all, including politicians of every party, that question period itself has become a brittle shell.
So, it’s worth asking: What are the habits of thought and speech that allowed politicians such as Mckenna and Klein to convey, for lack of a better term, honesty, and get away with it, indeed thrive? And are these skills that could be learned?
Ethical tweeting, and the dos and don’ts of robo-dialing, are a decent place to begin — but only that, it seems to me. There’s a more fundamental problem. Surely, ministers of the Crown should do their best to fairly, fully and directly answer most questions put to them in the House of Commons, rather than repeat talking points until everyone’s heads explode. Shouldn’t they? Otherwise, what is question period for?