Thursday, January 7, 2010

The Economist slams Harper over suspending democracy

With the words of Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber in mind; "Parliament and democracy are not being sidestepped - they are only suspended", these not one but two articles in The Economist, (that crazy left-wing rag which endorsed Harper in both 2006 and 2008) take on a special meaning:

The danger in allowing the prime minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around...Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister’s pleasure.

Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest. His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured. The government would also have come under fire for its lack of policies to curb Canada’s abundant carbon emissions. Prorogation means that such committees—which carry out the essential democratic task of scrutinising government—will have to be formed anew in March...He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The thread at the G&M is being bombarded by conbots calling The Economist a left win rag. Some blogger should count how many times Harper has quoted the mag in defense of his government.

Harper quoting a left wing mag. Who knew?