PM Harper Defends Screening of Members Statements
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly responded to what some are saying is an attempt to gag government members and limit what the public gets to hear. Harper was quoted as saying that his desire to have all public comments (speeches, public addresses, press releases etc.), cleared by his office is nothing unusual and is aimed at ensuring that his ministers don't contradict each other.
While Harper defends the approach some are calling it an erosion of public access to their representatives. They feel that the move is intended to limit public knowledge of the workings of government. They also see it as restricting public knowledge of what is happening around any given issue and how the government views that issue or are planning to react.
I have the precisely the opposite opinion, (I bet you knew I would).
I have no problem with a politician from any party presenting his or her point of view publicly, but only if it is clearly understood that the comment is nothing more or less than that, a personal opinion. What we too often see are situations where a government member, or worse yet, a cabinet minister starts spouting off in the media, or in a public statement without making that distinction. The result is a public that is left with the belief that the comment made is the official stance of the government. Often it isn't.
We’ve seen it time and again, a situation where an elected representative begins rolling along and makes some idiotic statement in direct contradiction of party policies and platforms. Sometimes those comments even fly in the face of basic common sense, but that’s another article all together. A good example of this is the flap caused by the Finance Minister when he reportedly blamed the Atlantic Accord deals signed with Newfoundland and Labrador & Nova Scotia for all of the problems inherent in the equalization process.
What Mr. Harper has effectively done is ensure that his government will ultimately be held responsible, at least by the public, for the comments made by its members. By vetting every statement trough the Prime Minister’s office the public will rightfully expect that any comment made going forward by a member of that government has the approval and agreement of the Prime Minister.
This will result in a very limited ability for government members or the government itself to back away fom any statement after the fact. It may even be impossible to do unless the PM is willing to publicly say that the representative who made the statement knowingly ignored a direct order by PM himself. In such a case the public has the obligation to hold the PM’s feet to the fire and should rightfully expect that some form of punishment be meted out.
As I see this as a win/win/win situation, for the public at least. It will:
- Force politicians to think before they speak;
- Lead to politicians to clearly identify for the public any remarks that are simply their personal opinions; and
- Make the PM fully accountable and responsible for living up to what is said in every single solitary comment made by his members;
Now who wouldn’t love that? Come on guys and gals, let's start hearing more of those promises you've always passed out like candy. Bring 'em on!!
5 comments:
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't compensate for the obvious fact that a wall is being errected between the constituents and their representatives when everything the representative says has to be vetted by the PMO. It's a tad monolithic to say the least. And isn't the role of the MP to tell the PMO what the constituents think, rather than the other way around? Democracy is supposed to be bottom up, not top down.
Anyone who actually believes the Conservative Party are genuinely interested in improving accountability and democracy is swallowing some pretty rancid bait.
I agree with you 100% Smeppy. The article was intended to show the idiocy of doing what the PM is doing. I guess it was lost in translation.
The intent was to show that there is really no way to effectively gag a politician since they simply live to talk but now what the PM has effectively accomplished is to leave himself open to attack because every comment will be assumed to have been approved and supported by his office.
I guess the point may have been a little muddled but basically that was the intent. The truth is its very hard to keep a politician quiet.
Politics is a public relations game - and one the PM has shown virtually no skill at.
It makes sense for the Prime Minister to ensure that his ministers statements coincide with his - its standard practice virtually everywhere in the world, thus the advent of the "message of the day".
This is just the way of modern politics. As usual, you're bitching up a storm over one or two drops of rain.
You just gotta love Harper's latest fashion edict for Ottawa (those cute little colour-coordinated "HarperMuzzles" so many Tories will be wearing for next few months). There is absolutely no truth to the rumour that the only permissible colour for the HarperMuzzles is blue. I have it on good authority that any primary colour will do, in fact, some expect Tory ministers to have a different colour for each day of the week! Now, that's being cutting edge!
But fear not, political discourse inside and outside the House will still find a way to bypass the HarperMuzzles and wander over the rest of the Harper New Tories agenda.
Then the true discussions will start on exactly what sort of Canada Harper wants to have.
If there's one thing I know. Keeping a politician quiet is like trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon.
Post a Comment