CANADA ... CRADLE OF DECLINING DEMOCRACY
. It is difficult to be a participating, or even comprehending citizen while living in Canada today. So much has changed most people from the past two or three generations seem to have difficulty finding common ground for political agreement often among people from their own generation. The media isn’t much help since most journalists lean politically towards a party of their choice. Either the journalist’s writing and reporting favors a specific party, or the head office has a party preference and expects the writers on the corporation payroll to follow suit. It seems neutral journalism and for that matter balanced editorializing has become extinct or at least extremely rare.
A good example is the recent confrontation between Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau and Ezra Lavant. A one-sided analytical so called news columnist attacked every aspect of the Liberal leader’s recent activity even maligning Trudeau’s parents. Inexcusable action such as attacking a person’s personal character and family are not what the public formerly expected of a good journalist. Today the columnist/journalist writing many recent national articles believe the opinions expressed in print do not need to be balanced simply acceptable to one political party or others base depending on the direction of the columnist’s support. Trudeau was probably at fault to a degree due to a political position and maneuvering, but was at least partly exonerated by a rare media apology.
Some journalist and analysts try to hide their political preferences but the leanings usually come through at some point. Even the most widely respected TV journalists try to be as neutral as possible during most TV news shows. Neutrality is a difficult task for any journalist when part of the job is to ask pointed questions that usually do not sympathize with the interviewed person’s party or is aimed at getting an answer to a question that the person has not been authorized to comment upon. It is obvious some regulars representing political parties on television news programs eventually refuse to appear mostly from frustration probably.
The entire change is the result of leader control over the political process. Watching representatives answering questions, a listener can almost see the representative looking towards some nearby source to make certain replies are party acceptable. Unelected and appointed party stalwarts seem to control everything said and done in parliament and news programs viewed by the public. The shift is away from the people that elected the person to supposedly represent constituents.
The problem is not hearsay, speculation or a political attack on any party. A few members from all parties have aired grievances with regard to the situation. However when a highly paid position with an above average pension for working less than a decade is offered even the staunchest non partisan elected represented will usually succumb. Inevitably they will follow the party line to preserve his or her future and retirement years. The member regardless of criticism can defend the practice claiming to serve constituents by resolving personal problems presented to the MP’s office. Every member has a staff paid wages subsidized to some, of not the entire extent, by taxpayers through government programs available to all parties. Every local problem unless deemed political in nature and a benefit to another party in the riding will usually be settled to the satisfaction of the person with the problem. Even if the situation reflects something related to parliament the member’s office staff is trained to field the issue making an excuse or promise that the issue will be dealt with in some way. The office worker’s job is to assure the member is represented as a problem solver to enhance chances of reelection. If retirement or some other issue arises, at least the party’s next nominee will be in a good position to get elected.
The situation is democracy in action even if the end of the current brand is in sight. There are articles circulating on the internet and elsewhere stating all democracies have a lifespan of 200 years in history give or take some decades. Our democracy is more than 200 years old and definitely in decline with current leaders justifying taking more and more power by assuming only their base supporters and hired help are competent to rule. The opposition in most instances is no longer a consideration in negotiating about or sharing issues, and even needs of the electorate. Attack is the only solution recently if any person, group or for that matter media person disagrees with a ruling party’s direction.
It has been a trend recently to reward media analysts and journalists with lucrative senate jobs or other appointments if those people become strong party advocates. Why would those people not reach for the same level of affluence and personal security as politicians? It is a fact that power can corrupt the best of intentions. There is positive proof journalists like everyone else have a price.
A good example is the recent confrontation between Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau and Ezra Lavant. A one-sided analytical so called news columnist attacked every aspect of the Liberal leader’s recent activity even maligning Trudeau’s parents. Inexcusable action such as attacking a person’s personal character and family are not what the public formerly expected of a good journalist. Today the columnist/journalist writing many recent national articles believe the opinions expressed in print do not need to be balanced simply acceptable to one political party or others base depending on the direction of the columnist’s support. Trudeau was probably at fault to a degree due to a political position and maneuvering, but was at least partly exonerated by a rare media apology.
Some journalist and analysts try to hide their political preferences but the leanings usually come through at some point. Even the most widely respected TV journalists try to be as neutral as possible during most TV news shows. Neutrality is a difficult task for any journalist when part of the job is to ask pointed questions that usually do not sympathize with the interviewed person’s party or is aimed at getting an answer to a question that the person has not been authorized to comment upon. It is obvious some regulars representing political parties on television news programs eventually refuse to appear mostly from frustration probably.
The entire change is the result of leader control over the political process. Watching representatives answering questions, a listener can almost see the representative looking towards some nearby source to make certain replies are party acceptable. Unelected and appointed party stalwarts seem to control everything said and done in parliament and news programs viewed by the public. The shift is away from the people that elected the person to supposedly represent constituents.
The problem is not hearsay, speculation or a political attack on any party. A few members from all parties have aired grievances with regard to the situation. However when a highly paid position with an above average pension for working less than a decade is offered even the staunchest non partisan elected represented will usually succumb. Inevitably they will follow the party line to preserve his or her future and retirement years. The member regardless of criticism can defend the practice claiming to serve constituents by resolving personal problems presented to the MP’s office. Every member has a staff paid wages subsidized to some, of not the entire extent, by taxpayers through government programs available to all parties. Every local problem unless deemed political in nature and a benefit to another party in the riding will usually be settled to the satisfaction of the person with the problem. Even if the situation reflects something related to parliament the member’s office staff is trained to field the issue making an excuse or promise that the issue will be dealt with in some way. The office worker’s job is to assure the member is represented as a problem solver to enhance chances of reelection. If retirement or some other issue arises, at least the party’s next nominee will be in a good position to get elected.
The situation is democracy in action even if the end of the current brand is in sight. There are articles circulating on the internet and elsewhere stating all democracies have a lifespan of 200 years in history give or take some decades. Our democracy is more than 200 years old and definitely in decline with current leaders justifying taking more and more power by assuming only their base supporters and hired help are competent to rule. The opposition in most instances is no longer a consideration in negotiating about or sharing issues, and even needs of the electorate. Attack is the only solution recently if any person, group or for that matter media person disagrees with a ruling party’s direction.
It has been a trend recently to reward media analysts and journalists with lucrative senate jobs or other appointments if those people become strong party advocates. Why would those people not reach for the same level of affluence and personal security as politicians? It is a fact that power can corrupt the best of intentions. There is positive proof journalists like everyone else have a price.
