The Importance of Openness for a Thriving Democracy

   “The light of day” is a concept that keeps democracies alive, accountable and focussed on its citizens. Citizens need to be able to know what their government is doing, what they are spending, what they are planning and the whys behind their initiatives. How else can we assess if the government we’re getting is what we had in mind when we elected them?  

    In this post I address three methods for the flow of information from the government of the day to its citizens and provide my observations of the Harper Government™’s performance in these areas.

Speaking directly to its citizens:    Ideal method for open and engaged democracy.

    Perhaps best suited to times long ago when populations were small, issues far less complex and the citizens more engaged politically. Unfortunately, not very productive in today's world. In 2011, citizens are occasionally given the opportunity to meet their politicians (e.g. standing on their doorsteps during elections) but how indepth can you get with questions of policy, intent and cost? Do you even know what questions to ask? Can you hold the politician’s feet to the fire long enough to get a straight answer to your question?

    The Harper government’s primary method of direct communication has been through a series of Conservative party television ads, most of which have cast aspersions on the Opposition Leaders and do little to advance policy debate. (See March 26, 2011 blogpost). Another has been a tendency to tweet vindictive messages from the nasty and paranoid staff running his PMO. A failure in my opinion.

Speaking in the House of Commons:     Acceptable method for open and engaged democracy.

    Supplies a wider audience than your doorstep. What is said in the House can be widely communicated to the public. Alternate view points from other parties can be offered which permit citizens a frame of reference against which to judge the government’s statements. Opposition parties have official spokespersons who follow specific files and therefore have greater knowledge on specific topics than the average Canadian. They can ask, on our behalf, clarifying questions and raise objections either in the House or through public comment.

    Question Period in the House of Commons is broken, in my opinion, and does nothing to advance public knowledge or policy discourse. Cheap political gamesmanship on all sides of the House has contributed greatly to the decline of political engagement by the Canadian public. An OK source of theatre, on the par with a high school cafeteria hijinks.

    I do not fault Mr. Harper for this state of affairs, but as someone who campaigned last time on making government accountable and more democratic, he has done nothing to advance this promise. And for a government that has tightly coiled all official messages from the Prime Minister`s Office, Mr. Harper has frequently, and cowardly, left the defence of government initiatives or errors in the Green Chamber to his parliamentary pit bulls. Poor performance, Mr. Harper.    

Commons Committees:    Good method for open and engaged democracy.

    Committees of the House of Commons are formed to address different areas of governmental business, e.g. Security and National defence, Fisheries and Oceans.  Their membership is based on party standings. Generally members of parliament sit on committees for which they have some knowledge, interest or riding concerns. They are able to be better informed (than the average bear) about the specific issues in each portfolio. Public servants, witnesses, experts and concerned persons can be called to testify before these committees of Parliament. Opposition members can examine government proposals in a more fulsome and meaningful way, speak for or against them and suggest amendments for their improvement.

    This is the score on which Mr. Harper’s government has fallen. By lying to the committees when called to account for decisions taken (Minister Oda and the Kairos funding refusal) and by failing to provide costing and information relevant to two large Conservative initiatives (new fighter jets contract and tough on crime legislation\penitentiary expansion), Mr. Harper has seriously impeded Canadian citizens’ right to know. I’m not certain how these actions could be construed as anything less than secretive. Or incompetent. Either the Government knows the answers and is doing everything it can to keep the Opposition, the press and ultimately us from knowing — or they don’t know what these jets and prisons and longer sentences will likely cost and the effectiveness of  Kairos’ development record. If the latter is true, the government’s bragging about being the best fiscal managers of the public purse goes out the window. If it does know why can’t we, the citizens of Canada, know?

    If these decisions are also being made solely or in part for Conservative ideological reasons – perfectly acceptable in a democratic society — let them so declare. And then let Canadian citizens decide if we want to live in a society with those spelled-out values. Let us have all the information, Mr. Harper and we will then tell you and all the other politicians what we want. You may have been found in contempt of Parliament, Mr. Harper, but what citizens need to realize is that this is, in effect and in fact, contempt for the Canadian public’s right to know. Massive Failure.

Tomorrow . . . the role of the press to an open, thriving democracy.