|
|Monday May 10, 2004 |
BACK |
NEXT
HARPER,
A BIONIC GAMBLE
by Angelo Persichilli
THE HILL TIMES
Who is
Stephen Harper? The answer to this question will decide who is going to be
the next Prime Minister of Canada. Canadians are not focusing on Paul Martin
and the Liberals right now. The last time Canadians focused on them, was
right after Auditor General Sheila Fraser released her damning report on the
$250-million ads and sponsorship scandal.
After that,
the polls indicated the Liberals’ support in the middle-high thirties and
the Conservatives’ support in the low thirties. The NDP is regaining only
part of what they had in the last, real consultation, in 1988, and the Bloc
Québécois is being used by the Quebec electorate again as a tool to express
its dissatisfaction with both the federal, and provincial, Liberals.
The polls did
not move during the meetings of the House Public Accounts Committee or the
raucous daily Question Period. The proof is Joe Clark: the only jolt was
provided by the kamikaze attack of the former prime minister against Stephen
Harper.
Canadians
have not paid attention to what Clark has said in a long time.
Nonetheless
the new Conservative Party lost five points in the polls when the former
prime minister attacked the new leader. This proves that Mr. Clark has
touched a raw nerve and that Canadians are now focusing on Stephen Harper.
It didn’t
happen the week after when former deputy prime minister John Manley attacked
the Liberals.
Here’s why.
The last
decade has been an extremely interesting one for Canadian politics.
In less than
11 years, from 1993 to 2004, Canadians have been asked to choose a new
government four times, an average of less than three years for each
legislature; an average bettered only by Italy’s Parliament a few decades
ago when Italians were called to the polls more often than they were going
to watch soccer games. And our Canadian average can be lowered in the case
of a minority government in the upcoming federal consultation.
Elections,
experts often say, are lost by governments. No true, at least in Canada in
the last decade. Excluding 1993, elections have been lost by the opposition
parties; with the governing party, the Liberal Party, very skillfully
exploiting the downfalls of their opponents.
In 2004, the
political environment hasn’t changed. In fact, it has reinforced this
dynamic.
It’s in the
genes of Canadian voters to alternate, after one or two terms, the political
organization leading the country. Moreover, voters try to balance out with
provincial governments and the one in Ottawa.
When the
Liberal Pierre Trudeau was prime minister, all the premiers were
Conservatives. The provincial Liberal governments became popular again when
the Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney took the power in Ottawa.
When Liberal
Jean Chrétien became Prime Minister, the Conservatives, or the NDP, took
power in many provinces. Ontario voted for the Conservative Mike Harris when
Canadians, rightly or wrongly, were afraid to pronounce the "M" word,
Mulroney.
In the year
2000, Canadians were ready for change, but the Official Opposition lost the
election. Today, with Liberal governments in Ontario and in Quebec,
Canadians are craving for a change.
But are they
going to get it?
I believe
there’s not much Prime Minister Paul Martin can do other than choose the
date of the next election. The focus of Canadians is not on him, but on
Stephen Harper. Canadians are ready for a change and are shopping for a new
government.
Unfortunately
for them, on the shelves of the Canadian political supermarket, there is
only one product: Stephen Harper. It’s not the Conservatives, not Canadian
Alliance: Stephen Harper.
So who is he?
He doesn’t
appear vacuous as Stockwell Day did. He says the right things and hates
water-skiing, but he has the charisma of Robocop, a hero with no feelings,
no friends, just enemies. I’m not saying this is the real Stephen, but
that’s the perception. I don’t know him personally; but he strikes me as a
bionic gamble.
This might be
enough to convince Canadians to trust him, as long as he can muzzle people
in his team like Jason Kenney. Kenney sounds more and more like an Spanish
Inquisition judge who turns the justice system up side down by rendering the
verdict first and find the proof after. In the process, he tramples on
whoever he finds in his way. The last example of this breech-delivered
justice is the insensitive and offensive remarks against an Italian,
respected, honest and talented actress, Gina Lollobrigida. She was defined
"an aging sexy kitten" only because she participated in a coin unveiling
event with former minister Alfonso Gagliano. This is not about Italians, old
people, or women; this is about Jason Kenney and his way of doing politics.
This is about
offending people you don’t know, that have nothing to do with Canadian
politics and are guilty only of being on your way. It’s people like Kenney
and his ilk who will damage Harper and help the Liberals. The Liberals count
a lot on Kenney’s performance to define Harper.
Liberals,
however, have some chores to take care of on their own. Instead of venturing
in a risky negative campaign (with Kenney on the move, who needs negative
ads against Harper?) they should present themselves not just as the only
moderate and credible national political organization, but also as a united
party representing all the Liberals. You can’t sell yourself to the
electorate as the only party able to unite the country, if you can’t unite
your own organization.
A minister of
the provincial Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty, told The Hill Times
last week that what brought them back to Queen’s Park was their ability "to
bring all Liberals under the same tent." The source said that "we were able
to bring back together all the major players, organizers, MPPs and all but
one MP."
This is not
easy because the fight, contrary to what we believe, is not between the two
leaders, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. There is a strong warfare between
the handlers of the two leaders that dates back to the early nineties. Media
have focused mainly on the dispute between Chrétien and Martin for many
years.
In many
cases, their disagreements were not the cause of the fight between the
"captains"; on the contrary, it was the fight between the "captains"
sparking the fight between the leaders.
I understand
resentments are deep, and I don't know who is right and who is wrong. And
this is irrelevant to the debate. What matters is that this is the cause
that destroyed Mr. Chrétien’s leadership and, from what I see, it is the
same cause that could heavily contribute to the possible defeat of Paul
Martin in the next election, if not immediately repaired. |
