Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Why I left the Senate
Evan Bayh, the former governor of Indiana and a U.S. senator since 1999, announced his retirement from the Senate this week, and penned an
extremely thoughtful piece on why in last weekend's New York Times. The piece was about what ails the U.S. Congress, but its echoes reverberate up here, at least if o
ne believes what one reads about Parliament these days. Concerned Canadians should read
this piece.
Bayh comes from a political family. His father was a senator from Indiana too, and he remembers his family maintaining active friendships with colleagues across the aisle. Families visited each others homes, and shared meals together. That
never happens anymore.
Now, he says, members routinely force votes on trivial amendments to provide fodder for negative attack ads. It's pretty hard to work with people who are "actively plotting your demise."
He also observed that only twice in his 12 years in Washington have the senators all gathered for a non-ceremonial purpose. The first was to sort out how to conduct Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, and the second was just after 9/11, when they met to discuss the American response. Bayh writes,
"There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day, just Americans. The spirit of patriotism and togetherness was palpable. That atmosphere prevailed for only two or three weeks before politics once again intervened."
He then suggests a load of practical-sounding reforms that would improve things (campaign reform, changes to filibustering), and pledges to spend his final 11 months advancing those proposals.
I particularly liked one of his concluding paragraphs:
"Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible."
I hope he updates us in 11 months time.
Labels: Evan Bayh, featured, political culture, political leadership, Senate
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
All in the family
In
earlier posts, we've talked about our lack of a "political class" in Canada, and also noted
how few Canadians wanted their kids to pursue a career in elected office.
Thanks to Edmonton Journal reporter
Trish Audette for
highlighting these all-in-the-family political stories from Alberta, one from Calgary and one from Edmonton. Move over Bushes, these family histories give a whole new meaning to political dynasty.
Labels: Edmonton Journal, featured, political leadership, Trish Audette
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What your mom doesn't want you to be when you grow up
A recent Ipsos Reid poll asked Canadians if they would "encourage any family member to run for public office because it is a noble calling."
The result? Two of every three Canadians polled, or 66%, said no.
That's not a surprise. Given the negativity that surrounds much of the discussion around politics, not to mention the time and travel demands and public scrutiny associated with the job, I'd have thought it might even have been higher.
Most of the MPs in our project have kids. We often ask the MPs if they'd like their children to go into politics. We're in the midst of analyzing the results right now, but so far, it looks pretty split among three answers: no, direct yes and the slightly modified yes (i.e., sure, but only if they wanted to).
I'm curious what teachers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers (or any other profession, really) would say if asked if they'd like their kids to follow in their professional footsteps.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Canada's "amateur" political class (II)
One big driver of turnover is electoral defeat, accounting for two-thirds of the total turnover (retirement comprises the rest). Thanks to the kind folks at
the Pundits' Guide, I've been able to browse their
extremely thorough analysis on incumbency, which suggests it's higher than this casual observer may have thought. In other words, once an MP gets a seat they have a pretty good chance of keeping it, particularity if you're in the Conservative party.
Here are some
facts from their site:
- In the 13 elections between 1968 and 2008 about 78% of incumbent MPs were re-elected.
- The flip-side of this coin means it's pretty tough for someone challenging the seat to win. Over the same period, that happened only 7.7% of the time.
- While the odds of keeping your seat are pretty good, they're not as good as they'd be if you lived in the States. In the 19 elections that took place between 1968 and 2009, the re-election rates for incumbent members of Congress was over 94%.
In both Canada and in the U.S., your party affiliation affects these numbers. Up here, for the seven elections between 1988 and 2008, the
incumbancy rates were:
- 96.7% for the Reform/Canadian Alliance
- 96.2% for the Conservatives (CPC)
- 88% for the Bloc
- 84.4% for the Liberals
- 67.8% for the NDP
- 46.7% for the Progressive Conservatives
Just the facts ma'am. Anyone have any thoughts on why?
Labels: Alice Funke, Bill Stanbury, featured, MPs, political leadership, Pundits' Guide
Monday, January 25, 2010
The MP weekend diaspora...
For most of us, how and where we spend our weekends, probably doesn't have a significant impact on our professional lives.
Not so with MPs.
Although not a specific area of our research, the MPs' personal and family lives invariably come up. One trend we've noticed, also supported by the research of Queen's professor Ned Franks, is the change in how MPs increasingly structure their work and home lives - and the impact that this may be having on cross-party relationships on the Hill.
For instance, 40 years ago it was normal for MPs' families to move to Ottawa with them. Air travel was less accessible, MPs' travel budgets were smaller and dual career families were less common. Moving was often the practical option.
The result?
Regardless of party, Ottawa became a bit more like "home," especially as all newly elected MPs (and their families) found themselves dealing with many typical family matters, such as schools, doctors and little league teams, together. Along the way, cross-party friendships often formed particularly as families socialized away from the political arena.
Today, the House suffers from what Ned Franks describes as a "weekend diaspora" where most MPs leave Ottawa on Thursday and return to their constituencies and families. One MP we interviewed said he'd hosted a dinner party at his home one evening and everyone who attended said it was the first time in their years in Ottawa that they'd been invited to dinner in the home of a colleague.
It may seem like a small change, but Franks argues that this lack of day-to-day, non-political contact could be part of the reason why the House is now a less collegial place overall. I guess it's harder to yell across the aisle when you know you may run into that person at the grocery store or at your kids' hockey game.
Of course no one is arguing for a cross-party sing along (although what a fundraising idea...) but just that this change doesn't have to be permanent. Ultimately, the work of Parliament is about people and so anything that helps MPs see a bit more of the human side of each other can only help. Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, Parliament, political leadership
Monday, January 18, 2010
A much-diminished Parliament? (III)
One
reader of this blog
raised some good questions about the average Parliamentary sitting days we have here in Canada in response to last week's
post. Here's my best effort at the answers.
First, he wondered how elections skewed the figures. Ned Franks estimates that Parliament sits, on average, about seven fewer weeks (or 35 days) in an election year. Maclean's Aaron Wherry
crunched the numbers by decade, removing election years. His analysis suggests a downward trend.
Second, the reader also pointed out that this "downward trend" may not be entirely accurate as it dilutes fluctuations. The line, he argues, is more "spikey" than straight downward.
Third, he wondered if anyone knew if there were data on sitting dates pre-dating 1968, which is when the House of Commons website starts tracking. I don't know of any in one place, but there are
summaries of Canada's various Parliaments. A very quick eyeballing (i.e., not exact!) of the figures suggests "spikey" is the norm: in
1869 Canada's first Parliament sat for about 9 weeks, or 45 days; in
1909 it sat for about 17 weeks (or 85 days); during much of the Second World War, it
sat pretty much constantly; in
1956 it sat nearly 200 days.
Any aspiring number crunchers out there who want to do the more precise math?
I suppose underneath these questions are others ones, including does it matter? Do MPs have to sit in Parliament to get work done? Do the numbers of sitting days equate to a quality of outcome?
As you ponder that, give this
article, by CBC's
Neil Morrison, a read. In it, he points out that Australia's house sits for about 70 days a year and New Zealand's sat 93 days last year (although the UK's sits about 150 days).
Even in our own backyard our federal Parliament keeps pretty busy. The provincial legislatures of Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia range from 60 to 80 days per year. Over the past decade, Newfoundland averages 42 days. And voters didn't seem to mind. In 2007, it sat only 37 days, and the voters gave Premier Danny Williams the largest percentage of the popular vote since the province joined Confederation.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, Australia, CBC, Danny Williams, featured, Neil Morrison, New Zealand, Parliament, political leadership, UK
Law: apparently not the only path to politics (at least in Canada)
This post is for all those aspiring politicos out there: law school is not your only option!
A common belief is that most politicians were lawyers before getting elected, an understandable assumption since so many former Canadian PMs (starting with John A. Macdonald, Wilfred Laurier to the more recent slate of Diefenbaker, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin) were all lawyers. So one can be forgiven for thinking that law school is step one on the path to political power. Not true - well, at least in Canada. In our pool of 139 MPs from the 38th and 39th Parliament, only 12% were lawyers. The others came from a variety of backgrounds, including: 24% from business or finance, 19% from government or politics; 15% from education and 10% from other industries. What's especially interesting, is to see how Canadian politicians compare with their international counterparts. Last spring, the Economist had a look at the professional backgrounds of international politicians and had some interesting observations on the cultural meaning of these preferences. For instance, in China, engineers dominate the political class. President Hu is a hydraulic engineer, his predecessor Jiang Zemin was an electrical engineer and the current Prime Minister is a geological engineer. The influence of engineers in politics is partly the result of both Chinese ideology and history. Specifically, under Maoism, engineering was considered a safe field of study. In countries where power has been seized via military coups, the political class is comprised of generals. Egypt has a preference for politicians who were academics, South Korea for civil servants and Brazil for doctors. In the US, lawyers are prevalent. Case in point, the Obama administration. President Obama, his Secretary of State, his Attorney-General, his Director of the CIA and his Vice President are all lawyers. Similarly, over half of America's senators practised law. The article also points to the increasing trend towards professional politicians, particularly in more mature democracies such as Britain and the US. Whereas traditionally, politics was something that was done after a "real" career, that is shifting. For example, David Cameron, the UK Tory leader, went from university into the party's research department, pausing for a brief career in PR. However, he has essentially, in one form or another been in politics his entire adult life.
Similarly Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Britain's current and former prime ministers, became members of Parliament at 32 and 30, making their past careers (journalist and barrister) short interludes. Will or is Canada currently seeing the rise of the professional politician? More on this to come...Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Friday, January 15, 2010
A much-diminished Parliament? (II)
Not only is our Parliament sitting less, but it’s passing fewer bills too.
According to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, a smaller and smaller percentage of bills receive royal assent (Parliamentary lingo for becoming law). Sixty years ago, more than 96% of legislation received royal assent. During the last Parliament, it was just over 53%. While it hasn't been a consistent downward climb, it has trended in that direction:
- During the King-St. Laurent governments (1945-57), 94.6% of bills received royal assent
- Diefenbaker (1957-1963), 89.7%
- Pearson (1963-1968), 86%
- Trudeau (1968-1979), 68.2%
- Trudeau (1980-1984), 77.6%
- Mulroney (1984-1993), 83.2%
- Chretien (1993-2004), 69.2%
- Martin (2004-2005), 58.8%
- Harper (2006-2008), 53.2%
Franks isn't sure we know why this is. Perhaps there was a stronger societal consensus in the post-war years than today, or a stronger sense of national vision. The shifting political focus to the provinces may also play a part. Maybe the legislation itself is poorly crafted and rightfully hasn't been passed. Perhaps the growth in omnibus bills are forced through quickly, while a number of small, more irrelevant pieces of legislation die on the vine.
Nor is it entirely clear if this is a bad thing. There are good reasons, particularly for minority Parliaments, to reject proposals they don't see fit. The challenge for all governments, Franks notes, is to "persuade Canadians that the legislation it proposes is good for them and the country. Parliament, and voters as well, have had their doubts on this score in recent years."
So maybe it comes down to that vision thing.
P.S. Thanks to Maclean's reporter Aaron Wherry for helping inspire this blog's title.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
A much-diminished Parliament?
MPs are spending a lot less time in Parliament, and according to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, this is a fact that long pre-dated the latest prorogue.
Franks has spent over 40 years researching Parliament, and at a recent conference in honour of political scientist Peter Aucoin he had occasion to reflect on his observations on the institution in a paper called “The Functioning of the Present-Day Canadian House of Commons.”
Overall, Frank’s view is that a series of changes in recent years have left us with a much-diminished Parliament, particularly compared to 40 years ago.
One indicator of this is the reduction in the average days per calendar year that the House of Commons sits. Over the past 30 years Parliament’s sitting days have gone down 36%. Here are Franks' numbers:
*From 1969-1973, Parliament sat an average of 163 days/year
*1974-1978, 156 days/year
*1980-1983, 139 days/year
*1984-1988, 163 days/year
*1989-1993, 115 days/year
*1994-1998, 124 days/year
*1999-2003, 115 days/year
From 2004-2008, the numbers was 105 days/year. Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry estimates we're on track for 114 days this year.
Although elections definitely influence this (the House sits, on average, for seven fewer weeks when there's an election), if prorogation becomes an annual event, numbers could drop even more.
Like everything in politics, life is always more complicated than it seems. While we like to think MPs are lounging on a beach somewhere, the truth is that they have at least two jobs: the one in the House of Commons and the one in their ridings. If the trends Franks highlights continue, however, they suggest the House of Commons part will continue to be an increasingly smaller part of their job.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
Monday, January 11, 2010
Political memory lane, vol. 3: The 39th Parliament
Last week we told you about the 38th Parliament, and this week are a few highlights from the 39th, which followed the January 2006 election and sat from April 2006 to September 2008. This was Stephen Harper's first minority government.
It doesn’t seem that long ago does it? But you may be surprised by what you’ve forgotten... The novel A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseni dominated the fiction bester-seller list; The Secret by Rhonda Byrne was becoming a global phenomenon and the 2007 Academy Award for best movie went to No Country for Old Men.
Meanwhile, in Canadian politics:
- Accountability (still): The fall-out from the Quebec-Federal Sponsorship Scandal continued and in February 2006 The Gomery Commission Report is released and it recommends a number of reforms to the civil service and its relationship with government;
- Democratic Reform: Bill C-16 passes on May 3, 2007. The impact? It brings into law fixed election dates which means that the Prime Minister is no longer able to call a snap election in a majority government situation. Going forward, regular elections will be scheduled unless a non-confidence motion is passed against a minority government;
- The Environment: In October 2006 and despite the provisions of the ratified Kyoto Accord, the Clean Air Act fails to pass, and
- Defence: The motion to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by two years (until 2011) was also successful
Next week, more on the backgrounds of our Members of Parliament.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Monday, January 4, 2010
Political memory lane, volume two: the 38th Parliament
As we mentioned in earlier posts, most Mondays we'll try to share factoids on our MP Exit Interview project. Part of our background work involved putting the MP's service in context of the history of the time.
Today: a short overview of the 38th Parliament, which followed the June 2004 election and sat from October 2004 until November 2005.
Culturally, it was a time of icons. In 2004 Runaway a book of short stories by Alice Munro was awarded that year's Giller Prize and on CBC The Rick Mercer Report was launched.
In 2005, Madonna released her tenth studio album (Confessions on a Dance Floor) and Comedy Central launched The Colbert Report, starring long-time Daily Show correspondent Stephen Colbert. Here in Canada, Peter C. Newman published his controversial book, The Secret Mulroney Tapes: Unguarded Confessions of a Prime Minister.
In terms of parliamentary legislation and Canadian issues, some of the topics that we were thinking and talking about as a nation were:
- Accountability: Calls came for greater accountability in the wake of the 2004 sponsorship scandal, where questionable funds were distributed to Quebec Liberals from a fund created after the 1995 referendum;
- The Environment: From November 28 - December 9, 2005 Montreal hosted the UN's Climate Change Conference where representatives from 189 governments met for international climate change negotiations;
- Public Safety: In November 2005, The Canadian Border Services Agency was created to address border security; and
- Marriage: On July 20, 2005, The Civil Marriage Act received Royal Assent, legalizing same sex marriage throughout Canada.
In many respects, this look back kinda leaves one wondering how much has really changed!
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Monday, December 21, 2009
Political memory lane, volume one
When we started our MP Exit Interview project, among the decisions we had to make was which group of MPs we'd seek to interview first. Some suggested only interviewing those who retired (versus those who lost in an election, as they might have hard feelings). Others argued we should start with the oldest living MPs, or with women MPs or with those serving in cabinet.
In the end, we opted to start with those who recently left public life, regardless of how they left. After all, losing is often part of the experience too. The creation of new political parties as well as wider technological change have changed our politics and we figured these MPs would have the most relevant perspectives.
We decided to go back two parliaments, or about five years, meaning we'd be speaking to those who left public life during or after the 38th and 39th Parliaments.
For most people (including us before we started our MP exit interview project), the 38th and 39th Parliaments didn't mean anything really. Most of us outside Ottawa (and even inside Ottawa) can be excused for not thinking about time in this way.
Simply speaking, those were the last two completed Parliaments (we're currently in the 40th). They were both minorities too, meaning everyone we've spoken to has experience serving in that context.
The 38th Parliament followed the June 2004 election, and sat from October 2004 until November 2005. It was Paul Martin's Liberal minority government, with Stephen Harper (Conservatives), Jack Layton (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe (Bloc) in opposition.
The 39th Parliament came after the January 2006 election, and sat from April 2006 to September 2008. This was Stephen Harper's first Conservative minority. The Liberals had two leaders during this time (Bill Graham as interim, followed by Stéphane Dion). Layton and Duceppe remained at the helm of the NDP and the Bloc, respectively.
In the coming few Mondays, we'll take you on a little journey down political and policy memory lane with a look at the events that shaped these two parliaments and the MPs who served in them.
Labels: featured, minority government, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Monday, December 14, 2009
So who are our MPs?
As promised, here are a few more factoids about the group we're speaking with as part of our exit interviews. - An experienced group: the average tenure is just over 10 years. 28% served as cabinet ministers, 35% as parliamentary secretaries;
- Not all left willingly: 52% retired from federal politics and 48% were defeated;
- Slightly more female, relatively: 74% are male and 26% are female (slightly more female than the current House, which is just over 22% female);
- Official language mix: 75% noted English as their preferred language and 25% chose French (about 23% of Canadians note French as their first language);
- More likely to be born in Canada: 12% were born outside of Canada (about 20% of the Canadian population is foreign-born, according to the 2006 Census);
- Married with children: At least 76% of our former MPs are married or in a common-law relationship and 71% have children; and
- Very well educated: At least 70% have at least one university degree while 6% have college diplomas or apprenticeships (much higher than the average Canadian).
Watch this space most Mondays for more ....
Labels: MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Getting to know you...
Before Samara started our MP exit interviews, we spent a good chunk of the summer researching the backgrounds of the 139 former MPs that left public life during the 38th and 39th Parliaments.
The team read whatever it could on these folks, including CBC riding profiles, and biographical sketches from Library of Parliament, Wikipedia and, where available, from the MPs' own websites.Where possible, we also read supplementary articles on each of our MPs and the issues they were involved with.
So yes, by the time we started our interviews, we were prepared – and we had also learned a great deal of unexpected and surprising information about who these Canadian MPs are (as a group) and how they compared to the average Canadian.
For example, available information reveals that at least 76% of the former MPs in our group are married or in a common-law relationship, versus 59% of Canadian adults. A small and perhaps random tidbit, but one that takes on a great deal more significance as our interviews reveal how much personal and family factors influence one's experience in public life.
This background research will also allow us to organize our results in a way that allows us to compare across a wide number of factors, including the age at which they were elected, their profession before politics, their gender, their place of birth as well as their home riding and political party.
All of which to say, there will be many more stories like this. Most Mondays we'll post a factoid or two in the hopes it helps you learn just a bit more about political leadership in Canada.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Sunday, November 22, 2009
How minorities could work
All the 139 MPs invited to participate in our Exit Interviews share one thing in common: they spent some or all of their time in public life working in a minority government. Minorities are relatively rare in Canada and many observers of things governmental
aren't very impressed with how minority Parliaments are working. Adjectives like "unproductive" and "intensely partisan" are commonly descriptors of Ottawa these days.
A pleasant side-effect of this, at least for the history buffs among us, is a mini-resurgence in the working of past minority parliaments. Featuring prominently are the minorities of the Lester Pearson*, from 1963-8, when many of the policy innovations we take for granted today became reality, including the Canada-Quebec pension plan, universal healthcare and the maple leaf flag. As recently as last week, Pearson's legacy was evoked by CBC journalist Don Newman, who appealed to the audience at the
former MPs' annual dinner for the creation of a "Pearson Plan." This approach to confidence, Newman believes, would restore order to what he
views as an increasingly fractious Ottawa. (See him give a similar speech
here).
As one political journalist
notes, however, it'd be nice if we talked about other PMs too, such as Sir Robert Borden, who was head honcho from 1911-1920. He built Canada's only formal coalition government during the very divisive World War One, put Canada on a path to independence from Britain and introduced a number of still-present policies, including rural mail delivery, the income tax and the National Research Council.
One striking thing about the Pearson years, gleaned from this highly-readable
biography by Andrew Cohen, was that what is now viewed as an extremely productive period was not considered that way at the time. In fact, the politics were fierce, and according to Cohen, it was only when it was all over that Canadians realized their nation had been somehow transformed. As the Borden-appreciating journalist observes,
that may be happening again.
* A remarkably succinct summary of those times, complete with relevant tips based on what actually happened by someone who was there, is this Policy Options piece** by Tom Kent, a senior advisor to Pearson.
** Policy Option's urls don't link directly, so you have to click on"back issues" and find the October 2009 issue, then click on the link to the article "When minority government worked: the Pearson legacy," by Tom Kent. Start by clicking
here.
Labels: Andrew Cohen, CAFP, Don Newman, featured, Lester Pearson, minority government, Paul Wells, Policy Options, political leadership, Robert Borden, Tom Kent
Friday, October 30, 2009
In Kingston next week?
If you are, we'd encourage you to participate in
this. Samara co-founder,
Michael MacMillan, is this year's
Brockington Visitor at Queen's, where he will participate in a number of public lectures, including the revisitation of a controversial film he made while a student in the 1970s.
While the student orientation chair, Michael made a movie called The Academic Cloister that raised a number of provocative questions about Queen's specifically and the role of a university education more generally. Incoming students were made to watch and discuss the movie before registering.
This "educational opportunity" was viewed, shall we say, in a less-than-positive light by the university administration at the time. The film was not screened on the campus again... until now, over 30 years later.
If you're in Kingston, please join us on Tuesday November 3 at 7:30 in Ellis Auditorium to see the movie and join in a discussion on the role of the university in the 21st century. Information on other public events is available here, including Michael's "last lecture," to be delivered on Thursday November 5.
Labels: Academic Cloister, featured, Michael MacMillan, political leadership, Queen's University
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
What IS the ideal voter turnout?
Back in warmer days, an interesting online
debate about political engagement and
our young people took place, sparked by a provocative
column in the Globe and Mail.
Earlier this month the organizers of the NOW conference at the University of Calgary (an event put together around the
Dalai Lama's visit to Cowtown, complete with a White Hat) invited me to participate in a panel on political engagement. My fellow panelists,
Troy Wason and
Naheed Nenshi, and I were fortunate to have a lively and dynamic audience, making our jobs pretty easy.
Naheed kicked off the panel by asking everyone to address the oft-stated comment that young people, despite their low voter turnout, are much more engaged than people realize, just not in the traditional ways. The notes for my opening remarks are available
here.
The most provoking question we received, albeit during the informal post-panel chatter, was this: what is an ideal voter turnout? Should it be 100 percent? Would we be satisfied with 80? 70? Why or why not?
I've been pondering this question off-and-on since, and I don't have a good answer or even a good basis on which to formulate an answer. Thoughts? Is there a point at which turnout affects good government?
Labels: Dalai Lama, featured, Naheed Nenshi, NOW conference, political leadership, Troy Wason, voter turnout
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Fun with the POTUS-tracker
Last month, the washingtonpost.com's former executive editor, Jim Brady, was at Samara
talking about the various ways that news organization works to cover politics and public policy in a changing media environment.
In addition to the experiments
he highlighted, it's worth checking out their
POTUS-tracker, which uses the information from Obama's schedule to show how he's spending his time, with whom and where, as well as details on the what (where available).
Issue-wise, he spent the most time on foreign policy, the economy and the catch-all "government-politics" category so far this year. VP Joe Biden is the most frequent Obama
meeting attendee, followed by his wife and Hillary Clinton.
If you're interested in the attention he pays to Canada, click
here.
Anyone want to wager a bet on what our PM's summary would look like?
Labels: featured, media and citizens, political leadership, POTUS-tracker, washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 9, 2009
And now for some good stuff....
Yesterday's post was a bit depressing, so today's seeks to swing the pendulum in the other direction and remind us why politics matters.
Last week, our colleague Reva attended Maytree's annual conference and sent the following note that I wanted to share with you.
----
Yesterday I attended the Maytree Leadership conference which concluded with a 1o year celebration of their Scholarship Program. The program provides tuition and living assistance for refugees between 17-26 who are in post-secondary education and in Canada without family. The program takes 7-10 students a year, but receives many times more applicants. In addition to financial support, the group meets weekly, volunteers together and essentially become part of the Maytree community.
The stories of the graduates are incredibly powerful.
For instance, one of the students spent three months hiding in a hole during the Rwandan genocide, during which she lost her entire family. She battled alcoholism, came to Canada alone at 17, started working in a factory (she had previously been the daughter of a prominent businessman), signed up for a night class and from a teacher found out about the Maytree program. Today she is doing a PhD in Philosophy at Penn State.
But the real impact that Maytree achieved was the addition of the words "and protected persons" to the Canada Financial Assistance Act.
This amendment, passed to a standing ovation by the House in 2003, made it possible for refugees and landed immigrants to apply for student loans and receive an education. When MPs voted to include these three words they effectively changed the stories of thousands of new Canadians (versus the 8-10 people that Maytree could help directly each year).
During the debate on youth engaging outside of the political system, Alison has consistently touched on this theme - that ultimately great change can come from government since they can have an impact that exceeds what is possible in the third or non profit sector.
Hopefully our interviews will uncover stories like this, that show how the actions of our MPs directly impact (and change) real lives - something that is lost in the current discussions. Sort of an antidote to the negativism....
Labels: featured, Maytree, political leadership, Reva Seth
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The ugliness of our politics
Last spring, I watched former presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush
chat on stage in downtown Toronto. At the time, I was impressed with the
regard each had for the other, musing that I couldn't imagine two former Canadian leaders having such a respectful exchange in public.
Today, one of the participants in our MP exit interview
project sent me
this article from the Montreal Gazette that reminded me again how rare such exchanges often are. The Gazette argues that the "propoganda" of delegitimizing our political leaders - think Clinton as morally unfit, Bush as stupid, Harper as a fascist and Ignatieff as a snob - is damaging to all of us and to the ability of those in public life to advance anything meaningful.
According to the author of a new
book on the President's Secret Service, death threats on Obama are
up dramatically, to 30 per day. While political violence in Canada is relatively rare compared to our neighbours to the south, it's an important reminder of how unattractive we've made politics and how limiting that is for all of us.
Like many of you I'm sure, I've lost track of the number of people I've spoken to who are bright, engaged, passionate and want to make a difference to their communities and their country who simply could not imagine pursuing any of their ambitions through public life. This is really a shame. Thank you to the
Gazette for the reminder that it's something we should all worry about and ideally work to change.
Labels: Bill Clinton, featured, George Bush, Montreal Gazette, political leadership
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Fun with the POTUS-tracker
Last month, the washingtonpost.com's former executive editor, Jim Brady, was at Samara
talking about the various ways that news organization works to cover politics and public policy in a changing media environment.
In addition to the experiments
he highlighted, it's worth checking out their
POTUS-tracker, which uses the information from Obama's schedule to show how he's spending his time, with whom and where, as well as details on the what (where available).
Issue-wise, he spent the most time on foreign policy, the economy and the catch-all "government-politics" category so far this year. VP Joe Biden is the most frequent Obama
meeting attendee, followed by his wife and Hillary Clinton.
If you're interested in the attention he pays to Canada, click
here.
Anyone want to wager a bet on what our PM's summary would look like?
Labels: featured, media and citizens, political leadership, POTUS-tracker, washingtonpost.com
Opportunity to work part-time with our MP Exit Interviews
We are currently looking for people interested in political leadership and public affairs to provide transcription support to our MP Exit Interview team. This involves transcribing digitally recorded audio tapes of one-on-one interviews with former MPs.
This is a wonderful way to earn some extra spending money while contributing to a project we hope will make an important contribution to the public life of this country. These transcripts will form the basis of our report and related activities and will also be donated to the National Archives of Canada for their historical value.
Details on the job are available here. Labels: featured, political leadership
Monday, September 28, 2009
Is this really a crisis? Pundits weigh in....
Our first set of MP exit interviews began this week, our first of what will be several dozen interviews with MPs who left public life between 2004 and 2008.
Incidentially, the period of these departures also kicked off what general wisdom has us believe to be a prolonged period of minority government in Canada. After nearly five and a half years of this not-unprecedented situation, recent media attention suggests we are in a period of democractic crisis. Time will tell how our MPs view this situation, but in the meantime, it's worth keeping up with the prevailing views of our national pundits (spoiler alert: I've saved the best for last).
In the same week,
Maclean's and CPAC co-hosted a
panel discussion titled "Our Democracy is Broken," while CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition
broadcast a different panel on "Canada's dysfunctional politics."
The Maclean's/CPAC affair featured eight extremely thoughtful guys who attempted to suggest concrete actions that would fix things. This ranged from specific ideas (e.g., bumping up Question Period from its afternoon slot to earlier in the day so to minimize the time spent prepping for theatrics, theoretically leaving more time for actual Parliamentary business) to broader and more empassioned pleas for a system that would produce outcomes that truly matter to Canadians (e.g., marshalling attention to the reduction and ideally elimination of child poverty in the same way that seniors' poverty was tackled and eliminated in earlier generations).
Unfortunately, however, without a clearer definition of what is actually broken and why, and without someone to forcefully mount a defense of the system and its machinery, the panel seemed to coalesce around the need for electoral reform, ideally a variant of proportional representation. No one appeared concerned that the very minority parliaments that (I think) were seen as at the heart of the apparent "crisis" are certain to increase under this scenario. This is not to opine on the relative merits of PR or of our existing system, but only to ask that we a) identify the problem and link the solution more carefully and b) avoid the view that electoral reform will serve as a silver bullet for that which may ail us.
And I shouldn't have to say this in 2009, but at least one perspective from someone of the female persuation would have been appreciated.
The CBC's panel was wider-ranging (and twice as long), with a variety of perspectives, and touched on issues of culture, history, government rules and machinery, the role of media as well a dose of personality and politics. It didn't come to as clear a conclusion as the CPAC/Maclean's effort, and perhaps for that reason it is worth a
listen.
Admist all this, leave it to vetran CBC personality Don Newman to mount the most elegant discussion on the entire matter at the
Canadian Club (which naturally went largely unreported, save for this
piece). Placing the status of our current political state (critically) in historical context, he argues for what he called the "Pearson Plan," based on an approach to confidence used by former PM Lester Pearson during his minority rule. The Q&A was also fabulous - both funny and touching. You'll laugh at his anecdotes about Brian Mulroney's calls to him during the commerical breaks of his long-running show. Politics from a different era, I'd imagine.
You really must watch it.
And if, after all that, you have time to share your views on all this, we'd love to know what you think of all this. Are we really in crisis? If so, why and what should be done?
Labels: Alice Klein, Canadian Club, CBC, CPAC, Don Newman, featured, Maclean's, media and citizens, political leadership, Sunday Edition
Monday, September 21, 2009
Brain candy, follow-up
Earlier this month, we
shared a couple of events of interest to those who care about the vibrancy of our public debates. In case you missed them, here are the highlights of two and links to where you can learn more.
TEDxTO was excellent. Kudos to the organizers. The Torontoist's
summary is a good one and the videos should be on at the TEDxTO site soon. Almost all the talks were fantastic, so we won't pick favorites, but those interested in the changing media environment will be particularly interested in Mathew Ingram's talk on the five ways new media will save old media. What are the ways, you ask? This will happen, he argues, by:
- Enlarging the size of the media pie. Tools are cheap and widely available. The more the merrier!
- Making media a process and not a product that occurs in a time-specific package.
- Making the media more human, instead of a faceless institution designed to hide mistakes.
- Making media more multi-directional. People "formerly known as readers" know and think stuff too, and can now be included.
- By allowing greater choice and opportunity for trade-offs (e.g., Twitter can allow people to trade off accuracy for immediacy).
Underlying all this are ways of strengthening relationships with readers, and using trust and relationships as a key competitive advantage.
And on the topic of the media, The Canadian Journalism Foundation held its first discussion of the year, an exploration of the changing media environment. It featured Rem Rider from the American Journalism Review and Ira Basen, the producer of an excellent overview of the news in the age of social media for CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition (scroll to the June 21 and 28
podcasts). You can read the event report or watch a webcast of the discussion
here.
If you recently attended other events of interest, please get in touch if you'd like to include details of them on this blog.
Labels: brain candy, Canadian Journalism Foundation, featured, Ira Basen, Mathew Ingram, media and citizens, political leadership, Rem Reider, TEDxTO
Monday, August 17, 2009
Response to your responses: more fodder for discussion
As a relative newbie to the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail, I was a bit overwhelmed by the response
our op-ed received. Who said no one reads newspapers anymore?
In any event, thank you to everyone who responded to our
piece last week. I wanted to take this opportunity to summarize and comment on the major points (positive and negative) that we heard and raise a few questions for ongoing discussion.
Overall, one of the most notable observations was the general tendency to characterize this op-ed against
one written earlier by Lawrence Martin on the political disconnect between young and old. His central point was that young people, while justified in rejecting the political status quo, were simply too lazy to do anything about it.
While it's true that Martin's column did prompt me to write, these Martin vs. Loat comments tended to ignore the common ground between the pieces. Although I haven't spoken to Martin directly, my sense is we'd agree that our politics can be more engaging. While it's true that I don't place singular blame for this on youth (or anyone, for that matter) and I don't think Martin did enough to acknowledge (never mind explore) ways that young people are seeking to change the world*, I do agree that young people don't vote much and it wouldn't be so bad if they did (more on that below).
I also thought that the Martin vs. Loat characterization obscured three closely related but distinct points. Almost all of 100+ comments received fell into one or more of these categories.
The first had to do with the ambition and inspiration of our politics and public discourse. Most observers agreed with the central point of the op-ed, which is that all of us - whether in the media, in politics or in private life - have a shared responsibility for improving this. Several suggested ways in which this could happen (e.g., several contributors to the G&M's
comments section advocated various institutional reforms, such as proportional representation and more open nominations) and one email to me wondered about an informal "community custodian" role that could form a part of many more people's identies. Samara is also undertaking its
MP Exit Interview project as one way to advance understanding and solutions.
The next two areas of comment concerned young people and their engagement in public life. The first was ruminations on why people do or don't vote. Many of these observations tied closely to those in the point above (i.e., "why would I vote for the same old?"). The second, most forcibly argued by
Dave Eaves, is that voting is less important and ignores the important public work young people are actually doing. Several other people pointed out that while they did vote, they felt their
volunteer or NGO work had greater impact.
In disentangling these two inter-related issues, it's first important to distill what we know and don't know about participation in public life before raising some questions for future discussion.
On youth voting, the
facts are clear. The overall decline in electoral participation in Canada, as in other countries, is the result of lower turnout among the young. As a recent
study commissioned by Elections Canada points out, this phenomenon is not new. In the 1960s, two-thirds of new voters cast a ballot. By the 1980s, it was 50 percent and in the 1990s through to this decade, it's about 40 percent. Those who don't vote when they're young are less likely to do so when they're old, even moreso now than in the past, suggesting we can expect lower turnout in the future.
The reasons for this, however, are less well-understood. As one of the more thought-provoking
columnists I know (correctly) pointed out to me, there is scant evidence that generational socialization (such as the inward nature of our government's activities in the 1980s hypothesis I posit in the article) has any impact on attitudes or actions. One could equally argue that government cut-backs might make those affected even more likely to stand up and speak up.
While this is true, it is also true that the compilation of
available evidence, albeit limited, suggests that the decline in youth turnout is more likely due to "changes in youths' socio-demographic situation and/or their values and attitudes than changes in the electoral landscape." (page 17, and the detail is provided from pages 13-16) More research is clearly needed, and the best we little people can do is suggest ideas at this stage.
And here's where it gets trickier. This same paper points out that those who are interested in or engaged in politics, and even those who engage in protest or non-traditional political activities, are more likely to vote than those who aren't. So if it's true that young people are more engaged in NGOs or other forms of engagement, why isn't that reflected in higher turnout? Perhaps Martin is right and the young aren't as involved as we think they are. Perhaps we're plagued, young and old, with an growing case of "why bother?" (many of the comments I received were in this camp, although the fact that they wrote suggests all is not lost). Perhaps there are more important factors, like the later maturation of young adults today.** Or perhaps something more fundamental is going on, like the "rejection of the whole system" hypothesis that Eaves posits.
The bottom line is, we don't know. Furthermore, voting is only one indicator of the larger issue. For what it's worth, it's my belief that if you're interested in change and the public good, it's illogical to ignore the work of government, policy and politics. It's not always fun and it's almost never easy. But it is important and potentially very (as our business friends say) high leverage. For example, for all the extremely important and innovative work that takes place in the NGO sector (of which I am a part), these organizations spent a small percentage of the total dollars governments do on these same issues. They also lack government's regulatory power and easy ability to frame the agenda.*** If one can motivate a small change in government on whatever the issue, it can make a big difference.
Which brings me back to the original point of my article. If we don't all do what we can to make politics more inspiring, to treat people who pursue public life or advance public ideas with respect and to strengthen the culture of public service in Canada and beyond, our potential for achieving great things will dimish significantly.
P.S. I also wanted to acknowledge the two critical comments I received, both which encouraged greater precision in my ideas and writing. You can read one of them
here. As an amateur writer at best, I'm grateful that you took the time and appreciate the reminder of the importance of clarity in thought and words. Any and all comments are very welcomed.
*I also can't help but wonder if he was just trying to stir the pot and provoke young people into the discussion. If so, my email/Facebook inbox and the number of tweets suggested his mission was at least partially accomplished!
**Some early research from Europe suggests this may be at issue.
***Approximately
half of the voluntary sector's revenues come from government. Tax policy also ensures charitable donations are also heavily tax advantaged.
Labels: featured, Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin, political leadership
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Op-Ed in today's Globe and Mail
This morning the Globe and Mail was kind enough to publish an
op-ed we wrote, arguing that we all need to pull up our socks to get at the malaise in our public life. We've already received a number of terrific comments. Please let us know what you think and we'll share a summary of the feedback with you in the coming days.
You can read the article
here, and comment on this blog, the Globe site or
contact us directly.
Labels: featured, Globe and Mail, media and citizens, political leadership
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
What do you know about political leadership? Please tell us here!
As regular readers know, we're kicking off our exit interview project with former MPs who left public life after either the 38th or 39th Parliaments (to translate: between 2004 and 2008). In the process of developing this work we've spent a lot of time understanding what we know and don't know about political leadership in Canada.
The short answer is, unsurprisingly, that we don't all that much. As many journalists have lamented, circumstances haven't always conspired to make our politics an enticing topic, but given the importance of our public institutions to the quality of life we all live, it's worth giving political leadership periodic thought. From time to time, we'll help by sharing some of what we're learning along the way.
Starting... now!
One of the biggest surprises we had is how little research into elected officials exists, at least in published form. Our project, for example, is one of the only times someone has systematically talked to MPs about their experiences in public life. "Exit interviews" are standard in most organizations; however, in Parliament, what should be one of the most important workplaces in the country, they don't happen.
Do not despair, however. There are options if you want to learn a bit more about life as an MP. Journalists' profiles, while often more one-off or focused on higher profile MPs, are one place. Here we'd particularly recommend Steve Paikin's books The Life and The Dark Side that look at the highs and lows of political life.
Once in awhile, MPs themselves will open the kimono. A must read is Barry Campbell's series for The Walrus. It's honest and very funny. In part one, he runs for office. In part two, he takes up life as a backbencher MP. In part three, he departs. He also shares some of his favourite campaign memorabilia, including a letter where he's made to return the $87.50 he'd been overpaid for his role as Parliamentary Secretary.
For the historians among us, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Library of Parliament conducted interviews with MPs (the material is available for a fee from the Archives). And for the political scientists among us, David Docherty's survey research into MPs from the 34th and 35th Parliaments (to translate: 1988-1997) is an important reminder of the influential, and sometimes constraining, role our political institutions play.
Any other suggestions? Please add them to the comments section, or contact us directly.
Labels: Barry Campbell, David Docherty, featured, political leadership, Steve Paikin, The Walrus
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Alumni Associations for MPs
Several months ago we told you about some of the great people we've met at the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. This group, non-profit and non-partisan, is comprised of those who have previously been in the Canadian Senate or House of Commons. It's kind of like the alumni association for ex-MPs and Senators, and they they have counterparts in many other countries, including the US and the UK.
The CAFP is supporting our MP Exit Interviews - giving us advice and helping us establish contact with and encourage the participation of their members. With this project, we are interviewing MPs who left public life after the 38th or 39th Parliaments (2004-2008) to learn what enabled and hindered their success, and what they'd suggest could be done to improve the experience of those in public life.
When they're not doing this, they're maintaining connections among their members and putting their knowledge and experience to work to advance of parliamentary democracy. Among other things, this includes school visits across Canada and training sessions to new Parliamentarians abroad. They also publish an alumni magazine, Beyond the Hill, and were kind enough to include a story about Samara's exit interview project in their most recent issue.
The US group's activities are similar in structure to those of the CAFP - promoting public service at home, strengthening representative democracy abroad and keeping their members in touch. There are a couple of insiders' publications that might interest the political junkies among you.
The British site cheekily emphasizes how little consideration is paid to people who've served in public life - a situation not unlike that we have in Canada. Several years ago, they commissioned a study into their members that shines a bit of light on former MPs. It's a bit more descriptive than the one we have planned, but it's always encouraging to learn from other experiments.
Labels: CAFP, featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Watch it here: another new online public opinion site
Earlier this year, we introduced you to The Mark, an online opinion forum looking to inject more umpf into the discussion on public issues in Canada.
In a similar vein, several months ago PublicVoice.tv arrived at an internet near you. Looking to "raise voices on issues that matter," PublicVoice is a bit like a video-version of The Mark, providing an opportunity for users to watch short videos on a wide number of issues, from the funding of zoos to Aboriginal business.
Samara has done its part. In a three-part series, Alison Loat talks with Maclean's magazine's Scott Feschuck about the themes underlying our work. The first outlines some of these themes; the second explores the intersection between media and public policy and the final one looks at the role of citizens in all this.
We were disappointed we didn't get to talk more about our MP interview project or other activities, but we will provide ongoing updates over the fall. Watch this space!
Labels: featured, media and citizens, political leadership, publicvoice.tv, Scott Feschuck, The Mark
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Bush, Clinton and public service
As most Torontonians likely know (particularly if they attempted to drive along Front Street yesterday afternoon), former American presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in town talking to each other, ably facilitated by former New Brunswick premier and Canadian ambassador to the US Frank McKenna.
I've posted a longer report on the talk
here, and of course, you can read about it in the MSM too.* In this space, I'll mention only a few highlights.
The first, wearing my Canadian political observer hat, was that mature, statesman-like tone of the discourse. Both men clearly respect the office of the president and the function of American government and service far more than they aspire to score cheap shots. It's a sad statement on our own state of affairs, where I struggle to imagine a thoughtful public exchange such as this between two former Canadian political leaders, never mind ones of such differing worldviews. And even if there were, would anyone pay attention, never mind pay to see it?
The second, wearing my Samara hat, was Clinton's commentary on public service and the need for it to be part of all our lives. I've elaborated on his three points
here, but the upshot is this: our world is interdependent and can't escape each other's fate, so we all should do something to improve the world. The internet makes it easier for us all to do our bit to contribute to a larger goal (e.g., we can all help Afghanistan through
kiva.org). Finally, there are always gaps that public policy and a vibrant economy won't fill, so all of us need to help them and ourselves with the how. "I try to find people in a how mentality who want to be in the how industry," he said, citing the ultimate failure of Kyoto not as the unwillingness of certain governments, including the US, to sign it, but more of the failure of all but four signatories to actually solve the "how" part and meet their commitments. Naturally, these points were not reflected in any of the media coverage I read.
The third, wearing my policy junkie hat, was McKenna's passionate and deftly-worded question to the former presidents on the
need for passports when crossing the Canada/US border for the first time in over 200 years of peaceful co-existence. I was touched by the question and annoyed but not surprised by the answer. Bush claimed his administration had a very different strategy and he had no idea why this happened (those working on border policy since 9/11 may have a slightly different take). Clinton also acknowledged that he, like most Americans, had no idea. His explaination was this, "in an interdependent environment when insecurity goes up, the [need] for control does too" and assured us that we had his attention and he was "going back home" with this.
I'm not optimistic.
The fourth, wearing a combination of all aforementioned hats, was Clinton's response when questioned about the Rwandan genocide. "One of the greatest regrets of my presidency," he said. Part description of what happened and why (no White House meeting on it, no clue it would get so bad so fast, hostility in Congress in the wake of Bosnia and Somlia), part explanation of what he's done since to help the country rebuild and part testament to the capacity of the Rwandans to forgive (complete with several moving anecdotes), it was honest, touching and thoughtful.
There were also some funny jokes, where Bush in particular shone. He had a good one about his mother calling Clinton a son, about picking up his dog's droppings (the Star's Rosie DiManno mentions them both in detail
here), and another about Laura telling him how dish duty was to be considered "his new domestic policy agenda." He subtly referenced the speaking fees, noting "Clinton and I used to believe in free speech." My favorite from Clinton was his response to a question on Cuba, where he said, "my view is influenced by what the Secretary of State says on the matter." Hopefully he can be similarly influential on the border. We'll see.
* To save you the Googling, here are a few links: the Globe's Ian Brown
here, the Star's Rosie DiManno
here and the New York Times'
here.
Labels: Bill Clinton, featured, Frank McKenna, George Bush, media and citizens, political leadership