Changing the 'What", Not the 'How' of Politics

The media frenzy prompted by prorogation continues today. Seventy-five philosophy,law and political science professors write a public letter complaining of the Prime Minister's "anti-democratic" actions; Rex Murphy points out the timetable of Parliament has a long history of being played with for tactical advantage by both parties; and various columnists wade in on the nuts and bolts of the specific issues which intertwine with this story.

Stepping back from the immediate impact of this story, I think what it confirms is that Harper and the Conservatives have given up on trying to change the "How" of politics and are now more simply focused on the "what." In the wake of the sponsorship scandal, they came to power on a platform that included accountability, transparency, and even Senate reform. Coming onto their fourth anniversary (although arguably, they came to this conclusion prior to the 2008 election but haven't articulated it publicly), it would seem that most noble aspirations regarding cleaning up the sausage-making process of government and political process have dwindled. Instead, the focus seems to be on governing effectively, changing the culture of government by the appointment process to boards, agencies and commissions,and enjoying the opportunity that a weak and divided opposition provide to implement the agenda.

If it takes unpleasant tactics, hardball gamesmanship, negative advertising, careful messaging and information control to accomplish these ends, so be it. The benefits of incremental change on the "what" of public policy has been deemed worthy of trumping the idealism of changing the "how" we are governed. It is probably impolitic to admit this, hence there will continue to be lip service to accountability, transparency, and reforming our institutions, but I suspect that serious attempts at such change have been prorogued, at least for the foreseeable future.