The presence of Justin Trudeau represents a disturbing new trend
in Canadian politics that risks damaging the long-term viability of our democratic
system.
 |
| The media makes the man |
Whoa! What an overstatement! Isn’t it Stephen Harper, after
all, who muzzles scientists, suppresses votes, prorogues Parliament, and passes
grotesque omnibus bills? Indeed, Harper is an aggressive politician who, it
often seems, would rather run the country like a dictator.
But the dismay and disappointment is in Harper the person.
If he is kicked out of office (as he can be), that’s the end of him. He has
done lasting damage, but as a person he does not represent a larger cultural
transformation in the political landscape.
That is not the case with Justin Trudeau. He is a man who, by any rational measure, would not be vying to be Prime Minister had his father not held the same office. His only occupation of any substance was as a school teacher. He used his friendship with Liberal Senator Jacques Hébert to gain access, and provide influence, on the Board of the youth charity Katimavik. When he wanted to enter politics, he ran in Papineau, which his supporters claim was a long shot. But it wasn’t. Since 1943 Papineau had been Liberal but for two years (2006-2008), when it was held by the Bloc Québécois. In other words, 63 years of continuous Liberal rule, with one brief interlude. But that is not the narrative dynasties use.
Once in the House of Commons, Trudeau initially had one of
the lowest attendance records of any member. He still has the worst record of
any of the leaders. What was he doing all that time, while raking in $160,000
in salary? He was moonlighting as a public speaker. He set up a shell company
to take in the money, thus benefiting from the lower corporate tax rate.
While a Member of Parliament, Trudeau was regularly charging
$20,000 a pop to charities and non-profits. Shamed, he was forced to give some of
it back. He even claimed $840 in MP travel and living expenses for one of his
private gigs. All told, since 2006 Trudeau has earned more than $1.3-million on
the public speaking circuit.
This is a man cashing in on a name, not building public
trust. And that’s the problem with political dynasties. They are a class of
people for whom name recognition translates into personal reward, sometimes
from public monies. This is accomplished, of course, despite any evidence of
outstanding personal merit, because that is a lesser requirement.
It is true that political children can dazzle. They have
been surrounded by power, and have a degree of well-founded self-confidence that
makes them comfortable in the spotlight. Should they want to take a shot at the
podium, they’ll be given the inside track. After Trudeau was elected in Papineau
in 2008, Edward Greenspon, editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, wrote that
Trudeau would "be viewed as few other rookie MPs are—as a potential future
prime minister—and scrutinized through that lens." Weird, that.
The long term negative effect of such a dynasty at the highest
levels of office in Canada should not be underestimated. Countries that have
gone down this route have rarely recovered, and the effect on the voting public
can be fatal. Desperate hope soon turns to cynicism. In the United States, the
Bushes and the Clintons are well-oiled machines, using their knowledge of the
system, and their considerable influence, to ensure they are never far from the
levers of power. Politics has become the family business. The meritocracy, such
as it is, is sidelined, and entire governments are beholden to oligarchs.
But in a proper democracy like ours, these folks still have
to get elected, which is what is so dismaying about Trudeau’s popularity. A man
who might have otherwise risen to be principal of a prep school (maybe), or
coach of his kids’ ball team, is now a candidate for Prime Minister. Chalk it
up to the Liberal brand, sullied as it is, and an electorate as inclined to
vote for a Canadian Idol as for a national leader.
It is worth noting that the strongest democracies in the
world (France, the UK, Germany, Australia), while having political families at
the subnational level, have never let this unfortunate phenomenon poison the
vote to the extent that two members of the same family claim the top job.
Indeed, the lack
of a dynasty represents an uncommon degree of political maturity. Dynasties are
the norm in much of the world, where the kids have been tearing up the place for
some time. Suffice to say that Canada might not want to find itself in the same
company as Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that beacon of
dynastic possibility, North Korea.
I imagine a future with Trudeau running against Mulroney, while down south Clinton is preparing to run against Bush. And Star Wars is the hot movie at the box office. Maybe it's a nostalgia thing? The good old days of martial law, free trade, sex scandals and invented pretext for war.
ReplyDelete