In a recent article Robert Fisk asks how so many decent Canadians came to be ruled by such a weird government. If it's any comfort to Mr Fisk, quite a few Canadians are asking the same question.
The Tories aren't the party of choice of the majority of Canadians. Harper was only re-elected in 2008 with 37.65% - not exactly a resounding vote of confidence.
A Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey in March showed that 45% of respondents held negative views of Harper, in contrast to Liberal leader Ignatieff who had a 26% negative rating. So Harper isn't as much of a hit with Canadians as some observers might think.
There perhaps has been less of a backlash against Harper than observers might have anticipated because his minority status has obliged him to make a few compromises. The economic downturn has seen Harper giving the nod to policies not exactly in-line with his right-wing philosophy.
Fisk's question about Canada's "weird" government, relates in part to the
embarrassing ban on British MP, George Galloway. He was refused entry to Canada on the grounds that he is a supporter of terrorism - something Mr Galloway denies outright.
This smack to the face of Canadian democracy by our elected representatives was dished along with an insult, courtesy of the immigration minister's side-kick, one Alikhan Velshi. He compared Mr Galloway to of all people - Oliver Cromwell - describing the MP as an "infandous street corner Cromwell".
The comparison is silly. Trite populist comparisons aside, the dreaded Cromwell and Gorgeous George couldn't be more different.
The
Independent article that I picked up on Norman Finkelstein's site titled "Robert Fisk: Galloway a victim of Canada's baffling approach to terror" makes a number of excellent points.
Independent:
But this is no laughing matter. How could the Canadian embassy in London have believed Mr Galloway's food and medicine shipment to Gaza, made with Israel's agreement, and its delivery to the Hamas government was a "terrorist" act, even if Stephen Harper's Canadian government regards Hamas as a "terrorist organisation".
Mr Galloway wasn't shipping guns and is touring the US with his anti-war, pro-Palestinian, non-terrorist speeches. "It's just not credible, Mr Kenney," Mr Galloway shouted, "to call a man touring the United States, playing to packed audiences... a terrorist or a security threat."
More to the point, Harper's "weird" government is culpable in what can only be described as a form of state-sanctioned terrorism - being complicit in the shipping of a Canadian citizen to a foreign country in order to subject him to barbaric forms of torture - and being complicit in other respects with rendition programs south of the border.
According to Amnesty International at least 70 CIA rendition related flights have touched down on Canadian soil.
Independent:
Canada helped the US send an innocent Canadian citizen, Mahar Arar, to "rendition" in Syria, where he was savagely tortured. Only a few days ago, another Canadian Muslim told me how he was whipped with steel cables in Damascus as his torturers read out questions from the Canadian embassy. Yet another Canadian Muslim citizen, Abousfian Abdelrazik, has been living in the reception of the US embassy in Khartoum for 10 months after Canadian agents asked the enormously democratic Sudanese government to imprison him for terrorism. Now the government won't let him come home unless he's taken off not a Canadian, but a UN "terrorist" list. Cromwellian isn't the word for it. But the mystery is this: how did so many millions of decent Canadians come to be ruled by such a weird government?
How? Well this speaks to explanations that have as much to do with personal style and appeal as the big issues of the day.
There is a certain respect in Canada for the no-nonsense tough guy. Politicians who are too smart and too cosmopolitan are viewed with suspicion by many. I saw a recent comment to the effect that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is "too smart" to defeat Harper. Harper of course is smart, but less obviously academic than Ignatieff. Being too much of an academic can lead to sudden cardiac arrest in Canadian politics as the recent demise of Stephane Dion attests.
This macho criteria for judging the suitability of political leaders, reflects the priorities of a culture that has no difficulty transporting the values of the hockey arena into politics. Being tough, or being-seen-to-be-tough can be a definite asset. Some think Pierre Trudeau was the exception, and in a way he was, but Trudeau also had a tough, combative streak - even with a rose in his lapel.
Jean Chretien decent though he is, was also in the tough guy mold. His "shortcomings" were seen as evidence of a certain type of authenticity. It didn't matter that he was challenged in both official languages. His rep as a brawler in his younger days gave him a certain credibility in the minds of some. Even as PM he wasn't beyond throttling a heckler who got in his face.
Another tough guy in the political arena, was right-wing troll Mike Harris who managed to do more damage during his tenure as Ontario premier than Attila the Hun. Most sane observers wondered what was wrong with people who voted him in as premier, not once - but twice. Harris was a horror show the province is still recovering from. But there is still a percentage of Ontarians who think the North Bay enforcer was good medicine... so go figure.
The Harper appeal for Canadians who buy it very definitely has to do with the image of the competent manager - the capacity to be tough when it matters. Harper has an engaging presentation style and has succeeded in persuading quite a few voters who fail to see the damage his government has caused and is causing to a lot that we love and cherish about this great nation.
Harper is like the alien visitor from planet Alberta who developed the necessary political tools to break into federal shop - and yeah he is "weird" by the standards of what went before. He isn't about national unity, so much as dividing-and-conquering. There is a ruthless partisan streak to the man. This is one reason he has never been handed a majority, a lot of Canadians have never warmed to or trusted Harper.
He plays to the need of some Canadians for a big daddy figure. He's white, Christian, has a helmet hairdo, has been known to wear a cowboy hat and flip burgers and can turn on the ole boy charm when he needs it. Some small 'c' voters who are influenced by these types of image considerations find that reassuringly familiar.
Those who have experience of the real Harper have a different take on him. They speak of control needs, a vindictive streak, narcissistic tendencies - the new federal government website for example has pics of great leader on every other page (on last check). There is also the intemperate side of Harper. He has difficulty compromising with those who don't share his ideological views. There is in addition as Mr Fisk points out in reference to torture, a dark side.
Canadians by and large are way more cool and progressive than Harper and his throwbacks. Don't forget, the politician who ranked higher in approval ratings in Canada than Harper not so long ago was Barack Obama. Canadians love Obama. His approval ratings in Canada during the US presidential campaign were extraordinarily high.
That says a good deal about the type of leader Canadians would prefer, given their druthers. But let's face it, we haven't had many candidates for top office in Canada in recent years who come close to approximating that type of profile.
The future doesn't look particularly promising. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, has been trying to out-Harper Harper in some respects. In a number of his policy positions he comes across as more conservative than liberal - but it's still early days. Although the NDP has done well in a number of provinces, on the federal level they haven't been able to secure the support they need to become a real challenge to the existing status quo.
So unfortunately, we may have to put up with the "weirdness" for some time to come.
