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.]

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

What Broadbent said

Given the reaction in political circles in the last few days, one might think Ed Broadbent had said something truly controversial, even offensive. But the former leader of the NDP merely expressed his opinions about two of the leadership candidates in the current race.

Broadbent had already endorsed Brian Topp, but found it necessary, about a week before the convention, to express his concerns about the personality and ideology of Thomas Mulcair, who seems to have momentum.

A Canadian Press story called Broadbent's comments a "grenade lobbed into the NDP leadership race." Postmedia columnist Michael Den Tandt wrote that it "shows appalling judgment. It dramatically increases the odds that, should Mulcair lose, the NDP will lose Quebec." Chantal Hébert wrote in the Toronto Star that "Broadbent has poisoned the well for whoever wins the leadership this week - including his own favourite Brian Topp."

The political ramifications might well be as bad as the pundits predict. But if they're right, that raises questions about the state of Canadian politics. Is it unseemly and "divisive" (to quote candidate Nathan Cullen) to publicly weigh the merits of candidates in a leadership race? Isn't that the whole point? The NDP is at a crossroads, and if the differences between Topp and Mulcair are as significant as Broadbent believes they are, surely that's a discussion the party - and the country - should have.

We are talking about the next leader of the Opposition, not the seating arrangements at a dinner party. Getting along is not the goal.

The Globe and Mail editorialized that by expressing his opinions so publicly, Broadbent "has forfeited his role as elder statesman of the party." It's an odd idea, that neutrality or even irrelevance must be the price for venerability in politics.

Political parties are not religions and Ed Broadbent never asked to be cast as the voice of God. Disagreement, in a political party, is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength.

Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: editorial

No comments:

Post a Comment