Ode to the Opposition

One of the nice things about finally having set aside speculation about the possibility of a federal election in Canada, at least for the time being, is that the Opposition Parties can focus their attention on being, you know, a functional opposition to the minority Conservative government. It has been pointed out around these parts that the currently diminished state of the GOP is, in reality, no real cause for celebration because the effective operation of government requires a strong counterpoint in the deliberation surrounding the issues of the day.

Democrats, on the whole, would benefit from a healthy and robust line of counter argumentation that, ultimately, strengthens their proposals and initiatives, and the country, as a whole, tends to have better decisions made on its behalf when just that kind of give and take is in play. Perhaps at least some of the current feeling of legislative stagnation stems from the kind of backed-into-a-corner feeling that currently lingers in the Republican psyche from recent electoral defeats (McCain’s half decent showing not withstanding along with trending numbers on 2010 predictions).

The same kind of dynamics hold true north of the border, particularly in terms of the benefits that accrue to the country as a whole from the interaction of as many different perspectives as those housed within the Canadian political arena.

I know that some might suggest that the talks about a coalition government that sprang forth last winter, as well as Ignatieff’s earlier wrangling over EI issues and his most recent electoral standoff with Harper represent the quintessence of oppositional politics, but it just doesn’t ring true for me. Those actions were certainly confrontational, there’s no denying that assessment, but in terms of fulfilling the role that opposition parties ought to in a representative democracy, they seemed to fall short. Which is not to suggest that issues like EI reform and economic stimulus aren’t important, but it is rather to point out that what was really at stake and being scrutinized was the political maneuvering each player offered up on a day-by-day and, sometimes, hour-by-hour basis.

It was a horse race, plain and simple, which, while good fodder for the media, does not a healthy democracy make. Though, admittedly, I had concluded by the end of the coalition standoff that for all its bluster and anticlimactics, it was effective in terms renewing a degree of interest amongst Canadians around what was happening in Ottawa and with their government. I think that remains true, but laurels are for the lazy, as they say.

And if there is one thing that Canadian politics has really lacked over the past almost four years, it is a truly effective opposition. And by an effective opposition, I mean a party/or parties that focus not on what it is that is going to best serve their chances of getting elected to government next election cycle (whether they actually stand a chance or not), but rather a focus on holding the government’s feet to the fire for the good of the country as a whole. It was just that kind of uncompromising sting that was so brilliant about Harper and the Conservatives as the opposition pre-2006. The Conservative efforts helped bring to light the kind of rot and bloating that had set into the ruling Liberals modus operandi and forced a much needed political shift in both the country (which, not coincidentally, brought the Conservatives to power) and the Liberal Party (the latter is still up for debate).

The only party that has seemed even vaguely interested in taking up that mantle as Conservatives build their own rot and generate their own bloating is the Bloc, who are best served to do so precisely because they have no interest in forming government in the first place. The regionalism of the Bloc; however, also means that it’s perennial opposition status simply isn’t enough to ensure robust accountability in our parliamentary system.

All of which is a long preamble to say that it is heartening to see this kind of virulence presently at play in Canadian politics. That the issue of the Canadian military’s potential role in the delivering of enemy prisoners into possible torture environments should have taken such a back seat and that only fairly recently are the warnings of a prominent diplomat on that very subject being discussed is something approaching moral horror.

Have we really been so pre-occupied with horse racing that this issue has largely shuffled by unnoticed and unattended by our elected representative after all this time? Twice the shame knowing the degree of outrage that has been expressed south of the border recently. Though, it is spot of light that the debate in Canada is not primarily over whether the use of such techniques by Canadians themselves is acceptable, but whether the government ought to have known it was contributing to something that is morally abhorrent on the face of it. Tire though I might of Canadian politics, so much the better are we that the acceptability of torture is not truly a live issue in our political discourse. For that I remain grateful.

The lesson that history offers here and that the Opposition Parties would do well to remember is that if you want the opportunity to govern the country, you must first demonstrate that you are willing to act in the country’s best interests — however that opportunity might present itself.

Tagged as: Afghanistan, Canadian politics, Opposition Parties, Taliban detainees, torture