With both the Canadian and the U.S. election campaigns in full swing, I figured I’d toss my few cents worth into the fray in the form of some advice to politicians, or those running their campaign. I fully expect it all to be ignored.
For the Canadians: If your team has lots of experience, make the most of it. Let some of those people expected to play a major role in government, should your side win, speak out on relevant issues. The system of “shadow” roles in the UK works well to my mind, and would work well in Canada (tough to tell how it would work in the US). Of course, it does assume that there are people running for office who are capable of becoming cabinet ministers and capable of discussing policy cogently in public (and if the other side doesn’t, what better way of showing that?)
Show respect to the other side (this is sorely lacking in the US campaign). Each of the four major candidates in the US campaign has shown themselves competent enough to build and win a campaign to get them where they are today. I can’t imagine it’s all that easy to become senator or governor in any state, which means all four have at least some degree of intelligence, perspicacity, and capacity for hard work (you can fight over how much all you want). Whether someone is likeable or trustworthy, or has the right set of policies, is a different set of questions that doesn’t obviate the need for respect. Isn’t this something most people should have been taught as toddlers, or in kindergarten?
{ 2 } Comments
I don’t think it’s practical here, primarily because the U.S.‘s ministers of state (including the head of government) are entirely independent of the legislature. There isn’t anything like a shadow president to appoint them, corresponding to the leader of the opposition in the U.K.
The U.S. constitution is the oldest written one still in effect (1789), and only four of its mere 17 amendments (not counting the Bill of Rights), the 12th, 17th, 20th, and 22nd, have had anything to do with governmental mechanics. So it’s no surprise that those mechanics are both archaic and clunky. There’s also a tendency, when your country is founded on a revolution, to try to deduce everything from first principles, and not pay much attention to the voice of experience.
On the other hand, replacing the divine right of Kings with the divine right of Parliament wasn’t such a smart move either, as the U.K. may be beginning to realize. Nothing defends the liberties of Britons other than the inertia of Parliament, and if Parliament got going, it could abolish them all in one day.
In recent years, both governing parties have made a deliberate practise of excluding their opposition critic on any portfolio from becoming minister of it upon assuming power. The thought seems to be too much track record and/or decided opinions and/or right or wrong or understanding of the issues will cloud the pure necessarily political instincts and skills.
They actually are proud of this.
Post a Comment