HONEST POLITICIANS?

Be careful what you wish for

ELLIOTT BROWN

Making promises is the first step in breaking them, and most political figures realize that silence is the surest way of keeping one’s word. Silence being impossible in politics, the next best option is to speak endlessly while saying nothing. Jean Chrétien was a master of this. A short survey of his foreign policy ruminations in 2002, the year leading up to the invasion of Iraq, reveals a virtual Escher-print of prevarication, qualification, faux-conviction and incomprehensible muttering. This “strategy” allowed Chrétien to cast his poll-chasing as principle, and to equate his aimless meandering with taking the high road.

In this view, equivocation is not without its charms, especially given that the main alternative is out-andout lying. The effect of either, however, is much the same: the divorce of election-time talk from actions taken in government. The electorate ceases to believe what elected leaders say, and must rely instead on estimates of who those leaders are.

In this game, policy positions become tools to help define a candidate’s character. Paul Martin’s last-ditch attempt to stave off defeat in the last election with a bewildering, off-thecuff proposal for a constitutional amendment is a case in point. Martin had no desire to write the constitution on the back of a napkin; he wanted to tell people that he was pro-choice and his opponent was not. Far from being a statement of intent, it was a symbolic affirmation of temperament.

Martin’s more phlegmatic successor, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has taken a fresh approach: tell people what you will do, and then do as you said you would. The Conservative campaign in the last election was not character-driven, but was fought and won on a set of concrete policies and priorities. Of course, the decision not to run on character was already made for Harper by his opponents and, well, his character. But whatever the reason, Harper’s emphasis on policy paid off. More importantly, he is carrying out the program he promised.

So, what’s wrong with honest politics? As it turns out, the downside of Harper sticking to his word is that Harper is sticking to all of his words. The customary separation of policy wheat from election-year chaff is not taking place and Harper’s government seems determined that every policy in the Conservative platform will see the light of day. This means that good policies — military procurement, scrapping the long-arm gun registry, tax exemption for scholarships and bursaries — are joined by the bad — cutting the GST to six per cent, revisiting same-sex marriage — and the ugly — baiting the press gallery into apoplexy.

“The electorate ceases to believe what elected leaders say, and must rely instead on estimates of who those leaders are.”

This is not to say that the Conservatives are wrong. Many of their policies are new, and so cannot be assessed until they are implemented, notably the child-care allowance and the Accountability Act. However, it does mean that cutting the cost of a large double-double at Tim Hortons from $1.45 to $1.44 and writing a few million cheques for “beer and popcorn define the next election. This begs the question, is keeping your word just another way of playing the character game?

The answer is maybe. Of course, playing honest means being true to your word, so intent is irrelevant as far as it goes. But even if honesty is better than equivocation, it means that words become important again, something voters are not used to.

There is another concern: policy for the sake of honesty need not be good or correct, only possible. As Kim Campbell once suggested, election campaigns are not amenable to discussing serious issues because good policies are complex and will not necessarily get you elected. Perhaps the corollary is true as well: silly policies can get you elected, as long as you’re honest.

Elliott Brown is pursuing a master’s degree in political studies.