Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Monday, July 09, 2012

What the Cabinet shuffle really means

Prime Minister Harper’s cabinet shuffle last week was trivial and disappointing. That’s the conventional view. In fact, it was significant and tells us a lot about the Prime Minister’s thinking.

A week ago no one would have suggested that Julian Fantino would be promoted from his position of Associate Minister of National Defence. He was considered to be largely incompetent on his key file – defending the government’s corner on their highly controversial decision to acquire F-35 fighter aircraft.

In fact, Fantino did about as well as anyone could have with the cards he was dealt. The real mistake was putting Fantino, the most inexperienced politician in the Conservative caucus, in charge of cleaning up the F-35 mess, the most acute political headache for the Harper government. It was akin to sending someone who had never played poker into a Las Vegas casino with a bag of money, a smile on his face and a sucker sign on his back.

Fantino was known to tell people openly he “hated this f’n file”. No wonder, it was a loser political hand, dealt with great skill by the Department of National Defence, the leading experts at dealing bad political hands. But Fantino soldiered on. And for being the good soldier he was rewarded with a promotion to CIDA minister by a grateful Stephen Harper.

For his part, the Prime Minister has learned from his Fantino error of a year ago. He has decided that the F-35 issue now needs to be managed by the most seasoned politician in Conservative ranks, rather than the least experienced one. Enter Bernard Valcourt as Fantino’s replacement at National Defence, a man who was a senior cabinet minister in the Mulroney government when most of Harper’s front bench was in high school.

The Valcourt appointment is significant in another way. Until two years ago Peter MacKay was not only the Minister of National Defence, but also the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), an invaluable tool for an eastern Canadian political boss. When MacKay’s troubles first started to emerge in 2010, the Prime Minister stripped him of his ACOA responsibilities. And as soon as New Brunswick’s Bernard Valcourt was elected for the Conservatives in 2011 he was given the ACOA portfolio, which he now retains along with his new Associate Defence Minister gig.

This is important. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the most pro-military region of Canada is not the conservative western part of the country. Rather, it is liberal Atlantic Canada, the only region that still derives significant economic benefit from the presence of the Canadian Forces. Three large army, navy and air force bases play major roles in the economies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador respectively. There is also a significant defence contracting industry in the region. With Valcourt now wearing both the ACOA and defence procurement hats the message to Atlantic Canadians is clear: Bernard Valcourt, not Peter MacKay, will deliver the federal bacon to the region.

The Prime Minister would have been justified in removing MacKay outright from National Defence, given his serial missteps over the past couple of years. This was almost universally expected. But Harper decided not to demote his party’s Progressive Conservative standard—bearer and thereby alienate that element of his coalition. And by promoting Valcourt, a classic Maritime PCer, the Prime Minister might even enhance his credentials with this wing of his party. All of which is an example of restraint and disciplined political management, reminiscent of Jean Chretien.

But the most significant thing about last week’s cabinet changes was revealed in the press release, which said the shuffle was all about “continuity”. The pundits have been claiming for months that continuity is the government’s Achilles heel, that a major cabinet shake-up is needed to get things back on the rails. Harper isn’t buying it.

The controversies that drive the cognoscenti to argue a significant Cabinet re-vamp is needed are regarded by Harper as distractions to be managed, not existential threats. It is reflective of the approach the PM took during his minority governments when the Afghan detainee and prorogation controversies burned bright. Harper believes the only thing Canadians really care about in these precarious times is the government’s “economic management”. And the Prime Minister sees this as his area of core competency for which his government gets good marks from the public.

The F-35 debacle, the abuse of budget legislation, fumbles by ministers here and there, and alleged voter fraud are for Harper the obsessions of elites, not ordinary Canadians, who are worried about their jobs, their finances and their kid’s future in an uncertain world where Canadians are guaranteed nothing. The rocky economic waters Canada is navigating call for continuity, not big change. That is what the Prime Minister thinks Canadians want. That is what last week’s Cabinet shuffle is all about.

Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Eugene Lang

No comments:

Post a Comment