Amy speaks out
The following is a paper written by a good friend of mine from yesteryear, its long in comparison to my regular rants, but its a pretty good read regardless... Feel free to comment of course, thats why she asked me to put it on here, to encourage discussion and all that good stuff. If you have any questions about sources etc. just ask, and I can send you a .doc with all the foot notes and stuff (I've made a couple editorial changes, but otherwise this is all her):
Harper and The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada:
Brian McNair, author of News and Journalism in the UK, surmised that in order for a democracy to be sustained, it requires three necessary components. The first element is constitutionality, an agreed set of rules and procedures that govern the political arena[1]. Second is a participatory public, individuals who exercise their right to vote, and finally rational choice, the act of making an informed political decision represents the final element of a functioning democracy[2]. While all three of these aspects could be equally scrutinized, one issue that has continued to concern the world of politics is the decline in civic engagement. Elections Canada statistics demonstrate that voter participation has been consistently decreasing, with the percentage of voter turn out steadily declining over the years[3]. The percentage of people exercising their right to vote has tumbled from 75.3% of eligible voters during the 34th General Election in 1988 to a meagre 60.3% of voters four elections later in 2004[4]. While there has been a number of contributing factors, levels of political dissatisfaction among the population has continued to be a major component of that decline. This voter apathy has been fuelled by the perception that politicians are primarily motivated by self-interest, and political parties established on dishonesty[5]. Analyzing the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada is a starting point in understanding the mechanisms involved with decline in voter participation. An examination of the principles of this policy relative to the actions of the government will expose its deficits which have allowed for the erosion of a participatory public.
The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada is founded on the purpose to ensure that communications across the Government are well co-ordinated, managed resourcefully, and are amenable to the information requirements of the public[6]. The essence of the text embodies the free movement of information through the public spheres of society encouraging open government and a participatory public. This notion of openness is a major principle underlying the communication policy. The report itself recognizes that “openness in government promotes accessibility and accountability”, which in turn fosters “informed public participation, equity in decision making and allows the public to assess government performance”[7]. The policy demonstrated clearly that being accountable to the public is at the forefront of its agenda, and that it seeks to keep society informed of the occurrences within the political sphere. The document provides an unambiguous structure of how the various governmental organizations are to achieve accountability internally as a cohesive unit and as an organization responsible to the public[8]. “Informing and Serving Canadians” is the primary condition of the policy requirements, which also reiterates that the policy is focused on having a government which will allow open access to information regarding its policies, programs, services and initiatives to the public[9].While the notion of openness inundates the policy, it is not reflected in governmental practice. Prime Minister Stephan Harper himself has come increasingly under fire regarding his lack of disclosure and his attempts to structured his media relations. During a recent news conference, the Prime Minister ignored the tradition of allowing the press gallery to organize questioners, attempting to hand pick reporters himself, and ignoring those with whom he was not interested in dealing[10]. Harpers defiance of the press has gone so far as to elicit a formal complaint to the Prime Minister’s Office on behalf of Parliamentary Press Gallery President, Emmanuelle Latraverse, after a meeting between Quebec MP Jean Charest and Stephan Harper was subject to a media blackout after being labelled a “private meeting”[11]. This type of conduct indicates that Harper is out of touch with the policy his government is supposed to uphold. If not out of touch, then the conduct of the Prime Minister demonstrates a disregard for the principles that citizens have come to expect as given: their entitlement to an open understanding of the undertakings of their elected officials.
Another overarching principle contained within the Communications Policy is that of accessibility. The guidelines cover such things as offering information free of charge[12], disseminating plain language communication in French and English[13], as well as ensuring that institutions of the government are visible and accessible to the public they serve[14]. The mandate on approachable governing is clear, but once again the conduct of the Harper’s government appears out of synch. A perfect example is the media ban imposed by the Harper government which was enacted to prevent coverage of the bodies of Canadians fallen soldiers as they were returned home from Afghanistan[15]. Customarily media are invited to attend when bodies of Canadian soldiers are brought back from overseas, in this instance the media were informed of the ban and have been told by the government officials that it will be permanent[16]. Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor states that the ban is out of respect for families of the soldiers, while many members of the press hypothesize that the move is motivated by politics[17]. Craig Oliver, CTV’s chief political correspondent surmises that the ban was a calculated move by the Conservative government to avoid the publication of images that might generate social response to the conflict in Afghanistan[18]. This type of media control is still occurring. Recently there was the case of Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen whose life was turned upside down, he was out of the country when the RCMP shared ‘information’ with the American authorities which inaccurately depicted Mr. Arar as a terrorist. This resulted in Arar’s deportation back to his homeland of Syria where he claims to have been tortured due the belief he had ties to Al Qaeda[19]. When the misinformation provided by the RCMP came to light, and Arar was freed, and there was a great uproar by Canadians seeking answers to questions regarding how such a grievous mistake could be made in the first place. During such a hotbed of criticism, there has been no response from the RCMP to any of these questions, prompting many, especially members of the Oppositions to believe that Harper’s government may be working to muzzle the RCMP[20]. Compared with the other moves the Conservatives have undertaken to control communication within and surrounding their government, it is quite believable that they would attempt to establish some damage control around the Arar case as well. These steps by the Harper government disallow citizens access to information and media coverage of events that impact their lives. If this type of control is allowed to continue, access to unbiased national information will be increasingly challenging to sustain.
With all of these examples, the one thing that makes the actions of the Harper government even more upsetting is the fact that the policy places considerable importance on government/ media relations as the main channel for the dissemination of information and other communications to the public. The document touts the media as vital to the democratic process, providing the public with news and information, reporting on the public’s views and their opinions on government[21]. As such, the policy instructs institutions to “cultivate proactive relations with the media to promote public awareness…”[22]. The document also states that institutions must facilitate any information or interview requests form the media as well as manage plans and strategies for communicating with the media[23]. The examples of the actions of the Conservative government have demonstrated that media relations is another section of the policy that appears to be ignored under Harpers’ administration. The Prime Minister himself has stated that he is no longer interested in giving news conferences to the national media[24], leaving one to question why with such obvious defiance, the Communications Policy exists in the first place. The government is not working towards a mutually beneficial relationship with the media, instead it is actively seeking ways to manipulate it and establish dominance, in order to utilize the media to further their agenda while disregarding their responsibility to journalists and the public.
There is a great disparity between what appears in government document and the actions the government takes with regards to this policy. This discrepancy is creating a public that lack confidence in politics and political leaders, a public who are suffering from a contagious social apathy about politics. For the most part, the average citizen is unaware of the details included in this Communications Policy, but even without such a document as a template the obvious double standards occurring in government are still visible. It has been proven that individuals are more likely to participate in politics when they feel that their vote will have impact on the issues[25]. It is impossible for the public to feel as though their solitary vote carries weight when there is so much blatant hypocrisy that inundates politics. When society is able to view politicians breaking their own rules so overtly, it would be farfetched to believe that individuals would place their faith in casting a ballot as a measure of ensuring political reform. A perfect example occurred in 2005, when Harper adopted a new Accountability Act giving independent officers of Parliament more powers, promising reformation on access to information laws as well as imposing a ban on corporate donations[26]. Harper stated that this Act would serve to “clean up the corruption and lift the veils of secrecy which have allowed it to flourished”, promising to “replace a culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability”[27]. To the publics this represents a government taking proactive steps in ensuring an accountable government. However, while the Act itself seemed promising, Harper has continued to attempt to control his media coverage, as well has continued to centralize his control over the workings of his government. He has even gone so far as to require his cabinet ministers and senior officials to have all of their communications vetted by the Prime Ministers Office before making any statements[28]. When questioned on this obvious partiality, Sandra Buckler, Harpers’ Director of Communication replied “I don’t think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being run well”[29]. The overall problem with the government is while they promote the ideas of access and transparent governing, they appear only to be saying what citizens want to hear, and in reality, undertaking actions they feel would best suit their own agenda. The fulfillment of said agenda is not even hidden from the public, who are able to clearly view the double standards of accountability. As one can tell from tell from Ms. Buckler’s statement, the government does not appear too concerned about the contradictions it puts forth, characterising the public as being passive receivers of information rather than a body that has the capacity to influence political outcomes.
There is a very thorough, well intended policy that is virtually ignored by the current government. The Conservatives are utilizing their power to manipulate actors in the political sphere in order to motivate their own causes. The barrier to overcome is how to convince people at a time of such manipulation, that their political participation is vital to changing the system. There needs to be a system of accountability, requiring the existence of an organisation with power to review the conduct of the government with regards to the basic functioning of their party, not their platforms. While the Opposition critiques the undertakings of the Majority, there is the need to create an independent body that is capable of commenting on the fashion in which people are being governed. It is already apparent that tight control exists in the government, and asking for this type of reform will likely be met with opposition. Without a system of accountability, there is no reason for the public to feel as though they are being heard. However, it is only through fighting for such a dramatic change to the current political situation that will allow individuals the feeling that reform is possible. Citizens could feel as though that they have the power, and the means by which to affect change in government. Only through the formation of a government that is liable for its shortcomings will society regain confidence in the political system and conquer the political apathy that has taken a hold of so many populations.
Harper and The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada:
Brian McNair, author of News and Journalism in the UK, surmised that in order for a democracy to be sustained, it requires three necessary components. The first element is constitutionality, an agreed set of rules and procedures that govern the political arena[1]. Second is a participatory public, individuals who exercise their right to vote, and finally rational choice, the act of making an informed political decision represents the final element of a functioning democracy[2]. While all three of these aspects could be equally scrutinized, one issue that has continued to concern the world of politics is the decline in civic engagement. Elections Canada statistics demonstrate that voter participation has been consistently decreasing, with the percentage of voter turn out steadily declining over the years[3]. The percentage of people exercising their right to vote has tumbled from 75.3% of eligible voters during the 34th General Election in 1988 to a meagre 60.3% of voters four elections later in 2004[4]. While there has been a number of contributing factors, levels of political dissatisfaction among the population has continued to be a major component of that decline. This voter apathy has been fuelled by the perception that politicians are primarily motivated by self-interest, and political parties established on dishonesty[5]. Analyzing the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada is a starting point in understanding the mechanisms involved with decline in voter participation. An examination of the principles of this policy relative to the actions of the government will expose its deficits which have allowed for the erosion of a participatory public.
The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada is founded on the purpose to ensure that communications across the Government are well co-ordinated, managed resourcefully, and are amenable to the information requirements of the public[6]. The essence of the text embodies the free movement of information through the public spheres of society encouraging open government and a participatory public. This notion of openness is a major principle underlying the communication policy. The report itself recognizes that “openness in government promotes accessibility and accountability”, which in turn fosters “informed public participation, equity in decision making and allows the public to assess government performance”[7]. The policy demonstrated clearly that being accountable to the public is at the forefront of its agenda, and that it seeks to keep society informed of the occurrences within the political sphere. The document provides an unambiguous structure of how the various governmental organizations are to achieve accountability internally as a cohesive unit and as an organization responsible to the public[8]. “Informing and Serving Canadians” is the primary condition of the policy requirements, which also reiterates that the policy is focused on having a government which will allow open access to information regarding its policies, programs, services and initiatives to the public[9].While the notion of openness inundates the policy, it is not reflected in governmental practice. Prime Minister Stephan Harper himself has come increasingly under fire regarding his lack of disclosure and his attempts to structured his media relations. During a recent news conference, the Prime Minister ignored the tradition of allowing the press gallery to organize questioners, attempting to hand pick reporters himself, and ignoring those with whom he was not interested in dealing[10]. Harpers defiance of the press has gone so far as to elicit a formal complaint to the Prime Minister’s Office on behalf of Parliamentary Press Gallery President, Emmanuelle Latraverse, after a meeting between Quebec MP Jean Charest and Stephan Harper was subject to a media blackout after being labelled a “private meeting”[11]. This type of conduct indicates that Harper is out of touch with the policy his government is supposed to uphold. If not out of touch, then the conduct of the Prime Minister demonstrates a disregard for the principles that citizens have come to expect as given: their entitlement to an open understanding of the undertakings of their elected officials.
Another overarching principle contained within the Communications Policy is that of accessibility. The guidelines cover such things as offering information free of charge[12], disseminating plain language communication in French and English[13], as well as ensuring that institutions of the government are visible and accessible to the public they serve[14]. The mandate on approachable governing is clear, but once again the conduct of the Harper’s government appears out of synch. A perfect example is the media ban imposed by the Harper government which was enacted to prevent coverage of the bodies of Canadians fallen soldiers as they were returned home from Afghanistan[15]. Customarily media are invited to attend when bodies of Canadian soldiers are brought back from overseas, in this instance the media were informed of the ban and have been told by the government officials that it will be permanent[16]. Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor states that the ban is out of respect for families of the soldiers, while many members of the press hypothesize that the move is motivated by politics[17]. Craig Oliver, CTV’s chief political correspondent surmises that the ban was a calculated move by the Conservative government to avoid the publication of images that might generate social response to the conflict in Afghanistan[18]. This type of media control is still occurring. Recently there was the case of Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen whose life was turned upside down, he was out of the country when the RCMP shared ‘information’ with the American authorities which inaccurately depicted Mr. Arar as a terrorist. This resulted in Arar’s deportation back to his homeland of Syria where he claims to have been tortured due the belief he had ties to Al Qaeda[19]. When the misinformation provided by the RCMP came to light, and Arar was freed, and there was a great uproar by Canadians seeking answers to questions regarding how such a grievous mistake could be made in the first place. During such a hotbed of criticism, there has been no response from the RCMP to any of these questions, prompting many, especially members of the Oppositions to believe that Harper’s government may be working to muzzle the RCMP[20]. Compared with the other moves the Conservatives have undertaken to control communication within and surrounding their government, it is quite believable that they would attempt to establish some damage control around the Arar case as well. These steps by the Harper government disallow citizens access to information and media coverage of events that impact their lives. If this type of control is allowed to continue, access to unbiased national information will be increasingly challenging to sustain.
With all of these examples, the one thing that makes the actions of the Harper government even more upsetting is the fact that the policy places considerable importance on government/ media relations as the main channel for the dissemination of information and other communications to the public. The document touts the media as vital to the democratic process, providing the public with news and information, reporting on the public’s views and their opinions on government[21]. As such, the policy instructs institutions to “cultivate proactive relations with the media to promote public awareness…”[22]. The document also states that institutions must facilitate any information or interview requests form the media as well as manage plans and strategies for communicating with the media[23]. The examples of the actions of the Conservative government have demonstrated that media relations is another section of the policy that appears to be ignored under Harpers’ administration. The Prime Minister himself has stated that he is no longer interested in giving news conferences to the national media[24], leaving one to question why with such obvious defiance, the Communications Policy exists in the first place. The government is not working towards a mutually beneficial relationship with the media, instead it is actively seeking ways to manipulate it and establish dominance, in order to utilize the media to further their agenda while disregarding their responsibility to journalists and the public.
There is a great disparity between what appears in government document and the actions the government takes with regards to this policy. This discrepancy is creating a public that lack confidence in politics and political leaders, a public who are suffering from a contagious social apathy about politics. For the most part, the average citizen is unaware of the details included in this Communications Policy, but even without such a document as a template the obvious double standards occurring in government are still visible. It has been proven that individuals are more likely to participate in politics when they feel that their vote will have impact on the issues[25]. It is impossible for the public to feel as though their solitary vote carries weight when there is so much blatant hypocrisy that inundates politics. When society is able to view politicians breaking their own rules so overtly, it would be farfetched to believe that individuals would place their faith in casting a ballot as a measure of ensuring political reform. A perfect example occurred in 2005, when Harper adopted a new Accountability Act giving independent officers of Parliament more powers, promising reformation on access to information laws as well as imposing a ban on corporate donations[26]. Harper stated that this Act would serve to “clean up the corruption and lift the veils of secrecy which have allowed it to flourished”, promising to “replace a culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability”[27]. To the publics this represents a government taking proactive steps in ensuring an accountable government. However, while the Act itself seemed promising, Harper has continued to attempt to control his media coverage, as well has continued to centralize his control over the workings of his government. He has even gone so far as to require his cabinet ministers and senior officials to have all of their communications vetted by the Prime Ministers Office before making any statements[28]. When questioned on this obvious partiality, Sandra Buckler, Harpers’ Director of Communication replied “I don’t think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being run well”[29]. The overall problem with the government is while they promote the ideas of access and transparent governing, they appear only to be saying what citizens want to hear, and in reality, undertaking actions they feel would best suit their own agenda. The fulfillment of said agenda is not even hidden from the public, who are able to clearly view the double standards of accountability. As one can tell from tell from Ms. Buckler’s statement, the government does not appear too concerned about the contradictions it puts forth, characterising the public as being passive receivers of information rather than a body that has the capacity to influence political outcomes.
There is a very thorough, well intended policy that is virtually ignored by the current government. The Conservatives are utilizing their power to manipulate actors in the political sphere in order to motivate their own causes. The barrier to overcome is how to convince people at a time of such manipulation, that their political participation is vital to changing the system. There needs to be a system of accountability, requiring the existence of an organisation with power to review the conduct of the government with regards to the basic functioning of their party, not their platforms. While the Opposition critiques the undertakings of the Majority, there is the need to create an independent body that is capable of commenting on the fashion in which people are being governed. It is already apparent that tight control exists in the government, and asking for this type of reform will likely be met with opposition. Without a system of accountability, there is no reason for the public to feel as though they are being heard. However, it is only through fighting for such a dramatic change to the current political situation that will allow individuals the feeling that reform is possible. Citizens could feel as though that they have the power, and the means by which to affect change in government. Only through the formation of a government that is liable for its shortcomings will society regain confidence in the political system and conquer the political apathy that has taken a hold of so many populations.
posted by kalen at 9:52 PM
3 comments
