Photo Credit: Igougo

A few months ago I wrote a paper for a poli-sci class predominantly in response to an article we were instructed to read by Juan Linz. Linz had contrasted presidential with parliamentary democracy, leaning heavily towards the latter as the preferred system of government for most democracies. I couldn’t help but take issue. After all, Linz had never seen the likes of Stephen Harper. Harper, I argued, was already proving that there are several ways to make a mockery of Parliamentarianism’s famed ‘checks and balances,’ the devices often cited by those like Linz as the selling points of the system. Indeed, Harper had (incredibly) exemplified how a prime minister with a penchant for despotism could effectively rule a liberal, democratic state almost autocratically, and that it was high time for Canada to reconsider its parliamentary system as a means to facilitate democracy.

And then things got even worse…
(more…)

Terminology from George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 often gets thrown around in politics. For instance, it’s not unusual to hear those on the Left claim the state’s monopoly of public surveillance, such as the cameras in London or homeland security bills in the USA, are signs of a looming Big Brother. It’s also not unusual to hear those on Right alluding to thoughtcrime whenever they’re being accused of human rights violations.

But perhaps the doubleplusgood thinkers of them all are the Ministers of the Conservative Party of Canada. While not specifically using the terminology with any particular proficiency, these parliamentarians recently exemplified their understanding of the novel in what can only be described as a textbook case of espousing doublethink. In the novel, doublethink means to accept and believe information (espoused by the state) that one rationally knows to be contradictory. The case in point? Copenhagen.

Once upon a time there was a quaint little climate summit in the quaint little country of Denmark. Statesmen, and stateswomen, from all over the world came to negotiate an accord that would hopefully save the planet’s environment from spinning wildly out of control into the fiery depths of hell. Canada, as the sovereign country occupying the world’s second largest land mass, would naturally have a lot invested in the crisis, as its vast territory covers an array of starkly different ecosystems, including that of the Arctic, where Canada’s iconic polar bear has recently been seeing less seal than Heidi Klum on a weekend.
(more…)

In a stunning move this week, Jack Layton, slammed the government over a leaked memo that revealed the government’s interest in cutting the number of environmental impact reviews it conducts. The leader of the New Democrat Party, “Uncle” Jack Layton, said it spoke of the government sacrificing the environment for the economy. Perhaps even more stunning was Layton’s suggestion that the opposite of a green economic recovery was a “brown” one.

Until now, political leaders in Canada have traditionally abstained from weighing in on opposite-colour contraversies. The last time it had happened was in 1967 when Lester B Pearson suggested the opposite of burgundy was magenta; a move which grew widespread protest from members of the PWFCIM (People Who’s Favourite Colour Is Magenta) who claimed Pearson’s assertion was reckless and inaccurate. That was a different time however, and Layton’s modern-day assertion is drawing its share of supporters, as well as speculation that “brown” may actually enter the books as the colour of anything un-eco friendly. This comes much to the dismay of the PWFCIB (People Who’s Favourite Colour Is Brown), who lament that the colour brown has been through enough denigration already, having previously been stigmatized as the colour of ‘poop’.
(more…)

With the Conservatives already planning their attack ads against Michael Ignatieff in preparation for the next election, one has to wonder just how swayed they can expect the public to be against their second straight Liberal opponent in under a year. Ignatieff has laughed off the threat, sarcastically quipping that he’s “shaking” at the thought. Defiant words, considering the negative impact the relentless bombardment of attack ads directed at Stéphane Dion had. Now it’s the same party with a different personality at the helm, but perhaps that projection of confidence, the cocky/defiant confidence which the more appeasing Dion lacked, is exactly what might bolster the new leader with voters and put the Grits back into office. It’s possible, for what makes a party worthy of governance, and what makes their leader resonate with voters doesn’t seem to be the same thing necessarily, and the Grits numbers have improved since Ignatieff became leader of the party. But is it enough? Will his personality triumph over the inevitable onslaught of smears? Or does anyone really care? Ignatieff, while seemingly more popular than Dion, still doesn’t inspire the same kind of political zeal in Canada that Barack Obama has in the US (or in Canada for that matter). In fact, just about the only safe bet in Canadian poltics these days would be if Barack Obama ran for, well… anything. You see, Canadians are Obama crazy. In fact, some polls during Obama’s presidential campaign run suggested a staggering 80% of Canadians would have voted for Obama given the chance. 80% in any democracy is beyond a landslide. It’s actually getting into ‘was that rigged?’ territory. When Obama visited Ottawa for a few hours a couple weeks ago, Canadians scrambled from all over to get to Ottawa, just to get a chance not to see him. So it’s fair to say that Canadians have Obama mania. It’s all somewhat understandable; by all accounts he is a bright, principled man, but what’s more than that, he’s clearly an exceptional orator, inspiring the basic fibers of inspiration wherever and whenever he speaks, so much so that he unfortunately seems to trigger a reflexive Canadian self-loathing anxiety. For as much as Canadians love Obama, they can’t seem to talk about him without lamenting about the state of their own politics; carrying on about how they ‘wish we could have an Obama’, ‘our politics are boring,’ etc. It’s envy as much as it is mania, and it’s an attitude that’s replete in Canada. Where and how Canadians get this attitude is somewhat of a mystery, because Canadian politics, like the politics of any country, can be very interesting, and there are plenty of good politicians in the fold. So why the self hate?
(more…)