Management, autocracy, tyranny

At week's end, we have some smart columnists reflecting on what we've been learning about Harper's leadership through the combined controversy over Guergis-Jaffer and the parliamentary showdown over Afghan documents. There's our own Chantal Hébert and then, some other must-reads: 

Paul Wells, in Macleans, has some important insights into the PM's obsession with secrecy. I particularly like this turn of phrase: 

But this Prime Minister cannot help himself. If he knows something you don’t, he values that thing out of all proportion to its true worth.

And this little snippet should give us all pause. 

During the 2006 election, one Conservative staffer was assigned to stake out the coffee shop where Liberal staffers would pause from long days in their party’s campaign war room. History doesn’t record that the overheard chit-chat did the Conservatives any good, but it made the leader feel better. Today, reporters seeking comment on any story are quizzed at length about their intentions. They may or may not get a call back with any information. But the information they surrender is collated and analyzed for trends on the issues that interest the media.

I'm betting the PMO is now wishing they paid as much attention to Mr. Jaffer's website and conversations as they do to reporters. As I mentioned on CBC this week, it takes the PMO approximately 10 minutes within putting something online to let reporters  know that we've done something to offend the folks at Langevin.  It took more than seven months after Mr. Jaffer's arrest for the PMO to exhibit any curiosity about his post-political dealings. 

The other must read of today is Dan Gardner's column in the Citizen. He apologizes for his alarmist tone, but I'm glad someone is rattling people's attention about this parliamentary standoff. If you thought prorogation was a slap in the face to democracy, pay some overall attention to the trend line here, Gardner is warning. 

Most Canadians have little or no understanding of how parliamentary government works, and Stephen Harper has consistently stoked that ignorance and used it to his advantage. He governs like a president, and since Canadians' understanding of government comes mostly from American television and movies, that seems reasonable.

What people don't realize, however, is that the American president is restrained by institutional checks and balances, including a strong and independent Congress. Stephen Harper is subject to no such checks and balances: If he is a president, he is a one-man government.

Errol Mendes calls it "prime ministerial autocracy." In 17th-century England, they had a simpler term for it. It is "tyranny."

Comments

[Catherine]

Good blog by another 'smart' columnist.

Having read it though, and watching the last few years of this gov't, it makes me feel a little queasy.

Folks are smart. Hopefully, because Harper has 'over-managed' for so long now, the veneer is wearing.

[Aongasha]

Susan, Susan, Susan!
with all due respect to you and Mr. Gardner, you are crying wolf again - if the press and the Libs etc. are so worried about tyranny, they hold the solution in their hands. This is a minority government - it can be defeated at any time. The lame stream media and the opposition can arrange this quickly and conveniently. Go for it!
Sorry you can't all suck and blow at the same time, or have it both ways. You want this government gone and an end to tyranny - do it!

[Darwin O'Connor]

Aongasha is right. Almost everything this government has done, it has done with unconditional Liberal support.

[John W]

On the secrecy issue. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told Power and Politics that he honestly did not know what Geurgis had done, what the PM had been told.. Evan Solomon exclaimed, "And you're the Justice Minister??" That is a bit bizarre.

[MyThought]

I don't agree with the above comments. It's about time the public were made aware.

It's been a slow process that has been under the radar.

This continuous spying on staffers, etc., is really disturbing. Harper is paranoid - that's an illness.

Harper's gotten an easy ride from the media and now it's bouncing back in their faces.

[geo]

Harper is paranoid?
The more I read from the media and the Liberal party it seems the paranoia is coming from these groups.
Liberal loving media and the Liberals themselves know they can not win an election so any time the Conservatives fart,these groups want to make sure it everyone stinks.

The thing is Canadians don't care about the smell and care less about these over indulging searchers of evil.

If you want Canadians to vote for the Liberals,tell them to give Canadians a platform they will worth voting for.

[Johnnyk]

Thanks for the Paul Wells quote, right on the money!
This guy has always thought he is the smartest guy in the room. Then he encounters real life outside his white-bread suburban coccoon and his poor judgment lands him up to his hips. After 4 years what really concrete things has he accomplished to benefit the nation in the longer term?

[Johnnyk]

Look back and see what Lester Pearson accomplished in 4-5 years with minority governments. But Mr. Pearson didn't think he was the smartest guy in the room.

[Frank Docherty]

The question heard around the world... Military Police Complaints Commission chairman Glenn Stannard: "Did you say the information contained in the un-redacted [version] really isn't critical - or did I misread that?" Prefontaine: "No, you didn't Mr. Stannard." Stannard: "Just a silly question then: any reason why we don't have it?" ... ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/richard-colvins-catch-22 )... That reason would be because of management, autocracy, tyranny and damage control.

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by Johnnyk | April 24, 2010 at 02:31 PM:
"After 4 years what really concrete things has he accomplished to benefit the nation in the longer term?"
Check it out for yourself:
http://torytalk.wordpress.com/harper-govt-record/

[Douglas]

Liberal loving media....?

I don't think the media specific loves any party whether it is conservatives, liberals, NDP, independts, etc.

The more appropriate term is party-in-trouble loving media.

I can see similarities to vultures and the media, as they are always attracted to the struggling, weakened, problem-plagued party.

And the bigger the party, the better because there is more of a feast.

Yes, the media is really enjoy living up this Guergis and Jaffer affair, but remember back in they day they had equal fun going after the liberals on sponsorship, the trumped up charge by RCMP in the middle of the election...

Media goes after anyone... period. As it should

[Gabby in QC]

On PM Harper, “tyranny”, and Canadians’ ignorance of how parliamentary government works, posted separately as two comments.
Part one.
• Chantal Hebert’s column?
Ms. Hebert’s column, IMO, can be reduced to her contention the PM acts quickly and ruthlessly if the office of the PM is impugned by rumours.
If one’s “office” -- or one’s profession -- were similarly impugned, would one not react to protect its reputation? I see no damning evidence there.

• Paul Wells?
He supposedly has decoded the PM’s personality, but IMO he misses the mark when it comes to the resignation of ministers.
The PM resisted calls for the resignation of Ministers Bernier and Guergis for matters dealing with their private lives. The PM did not pronounce himself on those matters.
Should the PM have sought Ms. Guergis’s resignation because of her husband’s DUI arrest? No. Even the airport incident was not a resignation-worthy event.
But as soon as issues affecting the office of the minister in question -- whether Mr. Bernier’s forgotten documents, or allegations about the use of Ms. Guergis’s office and government-issue BlackBerry for purposes other than for government related business -- their resignations were accepted.
In accepting the resignations of the above-named ministers as well as in the “shunning” of Brian Mulroney, the PM showed he guards the inviolability of “the office”.

• And Dan Gardner’s column?
Well, as I commented there … Mr. Gardner is not very original. Andrew Coyne used the Charles I analogy way back on Dec. 30, 2009. Ho-hum.
Errol Mendes and Dan Gardner continue to misinform Canadians with nuggets like "MPs decide who will form the government and, by extension, who will be prime minister."

The leader of the party that wins a plurality of votes/seats from the electorate becomes PM. 
It has been so since Confederation. That's why Chretien was able to boast he got three resounding majorities with 41.24%, 38.46%, and 40.85% of the vote.
Those under 50-percentages were never a problem back then, were they, whereas now a 50+% of the vote seems to be the legitimizing factor in the anti-Harper camp.

[MyThought]

Gabby - Torytalk...hmmm....LOL

[Gabby in QC]

I'm stumped ... I thought the rotating wheelie thingie meant the comment posted would not appear ... okey dokey, so here's Part Two:

• Tyranny? From thefreedictionary.com:
“1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly”
Mendes and Gardner apparently have forgotten PM Harper has been in a minority position and could have been defeated at various points during his tenure. But the opposition parties' own iffy electoral prospects precluded that choice, no matter the rhetoric they used about Canadians not wanting an election.
Strange tyranny, that.

• “Most Canadians have little or no understanding of how parliamentary government works …” claim Gardner & his new-found buddy Mendes. They argue PM Harper “governs like a president” without the checks and balances of the American system.
Not according to this jurist, Chief Justice John D. Richard, who wrote:
http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/bulletins/speeches/federalism_e.shtml
“ … Canada has a parliamentary system, like the United Kingdom, rather than a congressional one, like the United States. This means that, in Canada, the executive functions are divided between a formal executive, the Governor General, and a political executive, the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
…
But while the Governor General theoretically exercises all of the rights and privileges of the Queen in right of Canada, the real power is actually exercised by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Executive decisions made by the Prime Minister and his cabinet are, in effect, rubber stamped by the Governor General. In fact, it is a well established convention that the Governor General acts only on the advice of the government of the day.
Another difference between congressional and parliamentary systems is that a congressional government is based on a separation of powers while a parliamentary government is based on *a concentration of powers.* …”

Ummm, who doesn't understand "how parliamentary government works" again?

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: MyThought | April 25, 2010 at 04:38 PM
"Gabby - Torytalk...hmmm....LOL."
:-D
You expected maybe I should link to liberal.ca?