"Shocking ignorance" and "mis-education"

Last night, I attended an event for constitutional survivors at the Munk Centre at the University of Toronto. I mention that "survivors" line with only half a smile -- there was a bit of a post-traumatic feel to the meeting, with about 50 folks in the room discussing the battering that Canada's poor old Constitution has taken during this election campaign. 

The headline on this post comes from the quick web story I filed after the event, which you can see here (but not in the actual print copy of the Star, simply because it happened too late.) I also decided -- in a bit of 18th century meets 21st century -- to live-Tweet the proceedings, and if you  click on my Twitter profile, and scroll down, you can see the events as they happened, in 140-character bits. 

Though only two journalists attended last night's meeting (the CBC's Keith Boag and yours truly, who've travelled down many many roads together), there are signs that other journalists are feeling uncomfortable about our own contribution to what was lambasted last night as "civic illiteracy" in this election campaign. Graham Thomson in the Edmonton Journal has a great column today on the same theme.  While I'm at it, I'd also like to point your attention today in the direction of the Canadian Press's Joan Bryden, who is writing again about how all this focus on the polls is also dumbing down the discourse of the 2011 campaign. Watch some of the panel discussions these days about polls; while okay in themselves, that's all they're about, it seems. Not a mention of the issues or policies beneath the numbers. 

Let me try to explain why journalists of my vintage are doubly surprised at what the politicians are getting away with saying about Parliament and coalition government in this campaign. Back in the early 1990s, the reverse happened in  Canada. Elites and constitutional experts/professors/journalists  were confident that the public was too disengaged to care about the fine points of two constitutional accords that were hammered out by the Mulroney government.  Twice, in the Meech and Charlottetown sagas, the public surprised the political elite with their passion for grappling with the details of the agreements. People showed up at town-hall meetings in 1993 with annotated, heavily scribbled-over copies of the 50-so-page Charlottetown accord, fiercely arguing those "finer points." 

Flash forward to 2011, and we find ourselves in a meeting room at U of T, with only 50 or so people and  just two journalists, wondering how the basic laws of the land could be so determinedly trashed during this election campaign, with barely a peep of protest from the public. If I understand things correctly, the public has decided to hand  its  interest in these matters back to the elites and the professors. From this perspective, it looks like de-democratization. I hope I'm wrong. 

Comments

[Darwin O'Connor]

One of the main problems is he said, she said or "balanced" journalism: Giving equal billing to people who say things that are demonstrably false as people who say things that are true.

I think that is a vigorous constitutional debate going on, but it is mainly with the people who have the false beliefs.

[Wild Irish renegade]

The problem with the "elites and professors" is that they talk about the principles of COALITION government in the abstract. Of course it is constitutionally correct for Iggy to form an agreement with the other Opposition parties to oust a minority Tory government. What the elites and professors (including Iggy) don't seem to get at all is that in REAL practical terms such a deal places the Bloc in the role of "kingmaker". This is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE to loyal Canadians, and WILL NOT be tolerated regardless of whether it is constitutionally correct or not. This should not be difficult to understand. It is really quite simple, and the Canadian electorate, in its wisdom, does understand this--despite all the talk of "elites and professors".

[Sara-Anne Peterson]

I think the set up is something like the birthers in the US. There will be a lunatic fringe that will sit in the corner no matter what is decided and refuse to believe the election or decision is valid if Mr. Harper loses and be very vocal about it. Welcome to US politics.

[Rolf Auer]

What's' the surprise about the issues not getting out? The mainstream press side with Harper generally, and they usually don't allow blogs, etc. which discuss the issues to be relayed in terms of how to find them. The rest are sound bites. Why are you surprised?

[Bath Water]

@ Sara-Anne Peterson - Kind of like all the people who think that any win by Harper that is less then 50% of the vote is invalid?

[A Mannie]

Most of us don't care anymore because we know that the "elites" and their supporters in Southern Ontario will lie to us about their principles, morals and ethics, while robbing the rest of Canada blind. Do you really think that everyone outside the GTA is a moron? The tone of you newspaper says so.

[Walt thurtell]

Harper has been like a broken record on anything bordering on compromise, coalition, working together to move the nation's business forward....no way on his watch! If you say the same thing often enough, it becomes the narrative and Harper is a master at this. An honest hypothetical response to Peter Mansbridge's question, and suddenly Ignatieff is the bad guy in all of this. It seems that Canadians will believe whatever Mr Harper tells them to believe!

[Ron Fitzgerald]

There is a distinct difference between a coalition, which is a formal agreement among parties and a minority government that rules on a case by case basis. The party with the most seats but not a majority can be asked by the Governor General to form a government. If the party accepts then they govern at the pleasure of the other parties support. If they cannot or will not provide legislation that the other parties will support then they lose the confidence of the house and two things can happen.
We can have another election or the Governor General can ask if any of the other parties can form a government and maintain the confidence of Parliament.
This is our Parliamentary system - like it or not

[Lou Forget]

To Denis O’Connor - we all know that Mr. Harper would have chosen the same route in 2004 if political expediency had presented itself, the posting of partisan remarks merely diminishes the debate, I concur completely with the authors statement "doubly surprised at what the politicians are getting away with saying about Parliament and coalition government in this campaign." This is a dangerous approach to re-writing our constitution and precedence all Canadian should reject with ferocity.

[Frixilico]

There has been a systematic degradation of political where-with-all in Canada since this government has taken office. For example: the promise to do things differently, proroguing of parliament, the G20 Summit, the neutured media allows it to speak in deceptive half truths. The conservatives are a bunch of spinners they have corrupted what the liberals left behind of our political system. Why isn't Harper being confronted with the constitutional truth? Why didn't Peter Mansbridge press him on this issue? I'm so surprised at him. He is usually more astute. The media needs to step up here. It's not too late or is it?

[A. St-Laurent]

Darwin’s right. Fake balance is killing our critical thinking skills. In what way does the media foster intelligent debate when it pretends that a person who’s flat-out lying and one who’s substantially telling the truth have equally valid arguments?

Also, while the accusation of arrogance and elitism were often hurled at Trudeau, he had enough respect for Canadians to assume they would care about the Constitution and educate themselves about it, while the current PM counts on our indifference to get away with his assaults on it.

[jon drake]

Liberals and elites go together. I am surprised there were as many as 50 at this most exclusive gabfest. It might be so depressing next year they might have to hold the meeting in a phone booth. Liberal elites in Canada must be just horrified at the thought of conservatives upsetting their entitlement to alone debate matters like this. Pity that.

[Housey]

I don't get it. Here, you ahve one small side of the argument telling people in quebec that the MPs they vote for are invalid. Frankly, Im not a big fan of the diea of splitting up Canada, but having moved to Alberta recently, I find the sentiment quite the same here. And most of these folks are conservative voters. The fact people are b|tching about what stripes certain, elected MPs are wearing is a signt hat democracy is on the decline in our nation. Sorry Right-wingers, you'll have to suck up whatever the electorate decides. And that means if a majority of MPs decide to lead the house as a coaltion, so be it. That is democracy.