Complacency, impotence and scandal
Should Canadians have expected anything else?
Carson Jerema, Staff
As the country gears up for yet another installment of election hype, anger continues to seethe at those responsible for the sponsorship scandal. And we Canadians will surely punish the Liberals with another chance at governing, even if they do remain in the purgatory that is minority government.
The media has detailed the ins and outs of those to blame for the advertising mess that saw millions funneled to Liberal-friendly firms in Quebec and back again. The blame has been placed squarely on Jean Chretien and the Prime Minister’s Office. Many Canadians still believe Paul Martin to be culpable, despite his being exonerated. Poor Mr. Dithers.
But, while it may be easy to simply write this one off as Liberal arrogance, there are broader political and historical factors that have — perhaps inevitably — led to this sorry state of affairs.
At the crux of the issue is the Liberal Party’s status as the “Government Party.” They have governed all but 30 years since Wilfred Laurier took power in 1896. Their success is generally attributed to their ability to straddle the center with an effective mix of business and welfare liberalism.
A case in point was whenMackenzie King’s minority government was able to co-opt the breakaway Progressives — a populist farmers movement with its base in the Prairies — in the ’20s.
King also adopted much of the CCF’s (now the NDP) platform in the election following the Second World War. As did Lester Pearson in 1963, which led to 20 years of almost uninterrupted Liberal rule, with arguably the most charismatic prime minister in our history, Pierre Trudeau, presiding over most of it.
Trudeau’s great legacy was repatriating the constitution and the institution of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His great failure: Quebec premiere and separatist Rene Levesque refused to sign on. This failure eventually led to Chretien’s decision to implement the Sponsorship Program and attempt to build a sense of national unity in Quebec. Poor Mr. Trudeau.
During Trudeau’s tenure as Prime Minister, the Conservatives appeared to have had perpetual opposition party status, being called to govern only when the public wanted to hit the Liberals with a stick. But at least they were there. And at least the public saw them as a legitimate alternative.
When looking at the Brian Mulroney era, years in opposition, it would seem, bred an inferiority complex that ultimately rendered the party impotent. His sweep to power in 1984 brought on an almost thirsty arrogance.
Always determined to prove he was better than Trudeau, Mulroney made two attempts, Meech Lake and Charlottetown, at redrafting the constitution to not only bring Quebec into the fold, but also to appease Western reformers. Both attempts failed, with Charlottetown being voted down in a popular referendum.
In Quebec, voters felt that they weren’t given enough, and in the west, people believed that Quebec was being given too much. Lucien Bouchard left Mulroney’s cabinet and formed the Bloc Quebecois, taking and took much of the Conservative vote with him.
Similarly, Preston Manning’s opposition to the 1992 Charlottetown Accord helped his Reform Party take the west. As much as Manning’s successor and head of the new Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, would like to think that the sponsorship scandal will crown him prime minister, chances are that, like Manning, his base will remain in the west. Poor Mr. Harper.
Mulroney, in his attempt to replace the Liberals as the Government Party, fell to an almost Shakespearian fate as his efforts led to the ruin of the Conservatives and, of course, renewed Liberal reign.
The difference this time is that there wasn’t, and probably isn’t, a viable choice for power other than the Liberals. Throughout the ’90s, the opposition was splintered and could not hold the Liberals accountable for anything.
The media, which had taken round after round out of Mulroney for the various scandals that had come to light, did nothing to help the public’s perception of politicians. Gone were the days when Trudeau was being chased by adoring women and men alike.
Cynicism and the need for scandal are what have driven the media. Without an alternative to the Liberals, and with the perception of the corrupt politician, voter turnout dropped off dramatically. The Canadian electorate needs to take at least some of the blame for the government being accountable to no one.
Trudeau’s failed attempt to imbue a sense of national unity in Quebec, and the years of Liberal rule that preceded this failure, led to a reactionary Conservative government that eventually splintered the opposition in Canada and gave the Liberals essentially free reign to govern.
This, coupled with a complacent public and a system where the Prime Minister’s Office has an unwieldy amount of power, created the breeding ground for a free for all on the public purse. Poor Canada.
But as infuriating as all this corruption and mismanagement is, is it really worth getting angry over? When considering all the factors at play, should Canadians have expected anything else?
Carson Jerema is a fourth-year political studies student and the Manitoban’s Comment Editor.
