Most Canadians would acknowledge, I believe, that our politics have reached a low point. (It's ironic I would say that now. On Tuesday I voted in the BC provincial election, and it was the first election in a few that I've bothered to turn out for; I believe we're at a turning point in "politics", and so it's time to re-engage.)
It's my view (as always, open to evolution and refinement) that in postmodern culture, partisanship (like denominationalism) is on it's last legs. The childish bickering we are seeing in Ottawa, so completely removed from the real lives of ordinary Canadians (other than the most avid political junkies), is a harbinger that change is coming. To my mind, though, its a universal law that things get worse before they get better, so I'm not expecting much on the road to reform.
I read with interest Ed Broadbent's essay in the latest issue of Time. While Ed's memory may be a little "selective" in hearkening back to the glory days, he is right. There was a sense of mutual respect and decorum that seems absent in the House of Commons today. And he raises some salient points about the parliamentary system. The language of parliament - government, opposition, majority, minority - has devolved to depths previously unplumbed.
Take the word "opposition", for example. It seems to me that the current requirement of all members of the opposition is to "oppose" every single utterance of the government side. Should the government issue a statement that the sky is blue, it seems to be the duty and responsibility of every member of the opposition to respond with completely unsubstantiated claims as to why the sky is not, in fact, blue, and more so why holding to such a belief proves that the government is completely out of touch with the electorate.
What happened to the 75% of the values and concerns of Canadians that we all agree on?
I also like Ed's use of the word "coalition" - I believe this is where the future lies. To me this not only makes political sense, but as a follower of Jesus I see it as the only viable option.
No party can possibly represent anyone's views on all issues. (Not if they form their own opinions as opposed to adopting the party's, but I'm getting ahead of myself...) Close enough is not good enough. Our current system forces us to prioritize the issues, then vote for the party/candidate who matches up with our views on the issues we have deemed most important. In other words, we hold our noses and cast our ballots.
In last week's election I happened to have voted Liberal. Am I a "Liberal supporter"? No. I think they've done a decent job of getting the BC economy going. I'm not prepared to trust the NDP again, and while the Marijuana Party did run a candidate in our riding, lets just say there was no serious alternatives, and leave it at that.
I also voted "Yes" in the referendum. For the uninitiated , the issue at hand was BC - STV, or "Single Transferable Vote". (I won't take the time now, but check it out here, and even watch a Flash animation to understand how it works.) While I agree this would bound to be awkward and even unwieldy initially, I also feel this is the future; proportional representation that requires coalition building (there's that word again) on important issues.
Now, back to my Jesus follower comment, because that leads to my heresy.
Should believers be politically active? Yes, I think so. Except, I'm now differentiating between politics and partisanship. I'm not willing to compromise my own beliefs and values in order to fit in with a particular party's platform. Give me an issue and I'll give you my position on it.
These thoughts bring me to this notion, which admittedly is more of a variation on an earlier heresy than anything new:
Instead of looking to Jesus to lead us in forming our opinions on issues, and then communicating those opinions to our political representatives,
we, as believers, often
Look to our political leaders to tell us what to think, then attribute those positions to Jesus.
Feedback, please. This one is still half-baked.
Recent Comments