Unravelling socks and BC politics - Part 2
By 250 News
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 03:45 AM
By Peter Ewart
To read part one, click here.
Lately there has been much coverage in the press about the personality of Premier Gordon Campbell, as well as that of NDP Opposition leader Carole James. For example, MLA Bill Bennett, now a former Liberal Party caucus member, has charged that the Premier acts like a tyrant, is "not a nice man", and should resign.
Conversely, the claim is made that Carole James is not "tough" enough, and therefore should also be replaced. In effect, what is being said is that she should be more like the "tyrannical" Gordon Campbell ... and lately she appears to be adopting that stance.
Now it is certainly true that character traits play a role in leadership. But sometimes these can be overemphasized at the expense of examining systemic factors that contribute to leadership style.
The fact of the matter is that, in order to hold together the fractious coalitions that are the BC Liberal party and the BC NDP, the leaders, out of necessity, must act like tyrants, using intimidation, threats of expulsion, and other means to keep MLAs and their party members in line.
Both of these parties are in crisis. One of the contributing factors in this crisis is the nature of the party system itself. An ever-increasing demand of voters, not just in British Columbia but all over Canada and in other countries such as the U.S., is that they have more control over government and their political representatives, whether it be MLAs, MPs or members of Congress.
But, often as not, these political representatives, all of whom belong to parties, do the opposite of what the voters want, whether it is supporting the imposition of the HST, sending troops to the Middle East, or other unpopular activities.
A recent example in the U.S. was the government bailout of the Wall Street banks, the same banks that, through their reckless behaviour, had triggered the financial crisis in the first place. It is estimated that 80 to 90% of Americans opposed this bailout. However, both the Democrats and Republicans went ahead with it anyway. The midterm election results earlier this month showed just how much Americans were upset with this action.
In Canada, under the current party system, instead of representing voters, MLAs and MPs must pledge allegiance, first and foremost, to their party, which has a number of mechanisms to enforce an often strict discipline. Thus you have what is essentially an anti-democratic process, e.g., the party whip system and other disciplinary mechanisms, being superimposed on what is supposed to be a democratic process expressing the will of voters.
This contradiction can create great tension within a party, as well as between a party and voters (contributing greatly to the profound dissatisfaction that many in the public feel towards parties and the political process). Thus successful leaders often have to act like petty tyrants to keep the party together, utilizing threats, intimidation and punishments against wayward MLAs and MPs. It is said that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a master at such behaviour, gaining a reputation as a strict and sometimes vengeful dictator.
Another factor contributing to the "tyrannical" behaviour of modern political leaders is the nature of the party "coalitions" themselves. For example, the BC Liberals represent a collection of economic, political and social interests grouped into what is sometimes referred to as a "centre - right" or "liberal - conservative" coalition.
The core supporters in this coalition are big business interests, especially the monopolies and multinationals in the forestry, mining, oil and gas, construction, rail, tourism, and other sectors. Also part of this coalition are sections of medium and small business, professionals, managerial personnel and others from the "middle strata" of the population.
The trick that the BC Liberals have to pull off in each election is being able to keep this alliance of business and "middle strata" interests together around what is essentially a big business, neo-liberal agenda. The extent the party is able to keep the alliance together is the extent to which it will be successful in the election.
But there are also tensions between and among different sectors of business that are reflected within the party. For example, big business, with its monopolies and multinationals, often trample on the interests of medium and small business, as well as entire communities and regions.
In addition, there are geographical and territorial rivalries between sectors of business, as well as marked regional disparities. All of these are aggravated by the fact that Vancouver and the Lower Mainland dominate the province in terms of population and political representation, yet the rural areas are extremely productive in terms of forestry, mining, energy and oil and gas revenues. It is not accidental that all three of the dissident Liberal and NDP MLAs hail from rural areas of the province.
There are also divisions within the big monopolies and multinationals themselves. For example, a bitter dispute has erupted between CN and CP Rail, on the one hand, and their resource company suppliers, on the other hand, who want stronger government regulation over the rail companies in order to ensure better service.
However, in the final analysis, despite its support in other sectors, the BC Liberal Party is a party of big business. That is its bedrock support. And that can be seen when various controversies and disputes are examined. For example, despite widespread opposition from rural communities, small and medium rural business (many of which were part of the Liberal party "coalition"), and others, the BC Liberals reversed their promise and sold BC Rail to the giant rail multinational, CN Rail.
Similarly, the BC Liberals brought in the Harmonized Sales Tax, which was strongly supported by the big resource export companies. They did this, of course, over the opposition of large sections of the population, including small, medium and even some big business (in the tourism, real estate and retail sectors). This opposition is so widespread that it was a factor in the defection of two Liberal MLAs, Blair Lekstrom and Bill Bennett, both of whom are from rural ridings.
On the HST, the BC Liberals are caught between a rock and a hard place (a dilemma of their own making) with no easy way out. If they persist in keeping the "dead cat" of the HST around their neck, they risk being wiped out in the next election. However, if they "throw the dead cat away" and cancel the hated tax, they alienate an important section of their core support, i.e. the big resource export companies.
All of these contradictions are bound to emerge in the upcoming BC Liberal leadership race. For example, Ian Tostenson, the President of the BC Restaurant and Food Services Association, is reported to be considering entering the race. He is on record as being critical of the HST, as many members of his association have bitterly complained that the tax is hurting their restaurant trade. If he wins, there is a definite possibility that the HST could be cancelled. But then the big resource export companies will have their noses out of joint. Either way, one section or another of the BC Liberal party is going to be unhappy.
Thus we see the unravelling of the Liberal's "grand alliance" happening right before our eyes. As this alliance has come apart over the last year and a half, we have watched how, as if in some kind of strange counterpoint, Premier Campbell has become even more tyrannical and dictatorial to the point that he scarcely consults members of his own cabinet, let alone caucus, in radically reorganizing government ministries, bringing in an ill-fated tax cut, and other reckless and desperate measures.
In normal times, the unravelling "sock" of the "centre-right" liberal alliance would mean that the NDP would be coming to power as happened in 1972 and in the early 1990s. In normal times, it might also mean that some sections of big business would support its election, or at least not stand in the way, as happened in both those periods.
But these are not normal times. And the NDP coalition itself is beset with contradictions to the point that it faces the possibility of its own unravelling. Thus we see Carole James herself increasingly taking on a dictatorial role as the divisions in her own party deepen.
All of this is symptomatic of a political party system in acute crisis, one that cannot be cured by more dictatorial methods, or, for that matter, by simply changing a leader.
Stay tuned for "Part 3" of "Unravelling socks and BC politics" where some of the problems currently gripping the BC NDP will be examined.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: skeptikl on November 23 2010 6:38 AM
That is what makes it interesting to see someone like Tostenson sonsidering entering the leadership race on the side of the Liberals. It would seem to me that he could just as easily fit in with the NDP. Tug a bit to the left in one party, or to the right in the other.
In a de facto two party system, the battle is for the middle and that middle shifts a bit to the right and a bit to the left like a metronome keeping the beat of political opportunism.