Monkey see, monkey do

Now that George W. is going, and an intelligent, articulate man is assuming the presidency, we can expect Canada’s latte crowd to soften on the anti-U.S. rhetoric, which reached epic proportions in recent years. But Bush aside, there is little justification for such anti-Americanism in this country. After all, the United States is a democracy and we aren’t. Not really. Consider how the two countries choose their political leaders.

Barak Obama has been subjected to nothing short of an ultra-marathon on his way to the U.S. presidency. He was first elected to the Illinois senate in 1996, was re-elected in 1998, and in 2004 was elected as the junior Senator from Illinois to serve in Washington. But even then his profile was low. In July of 2004, he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, and sprang into the limelight where he has been ever since. In February of 2007, he announced his bid to run for the presidency, and few gave him much of a chance. And that was when the marathon began.

Out of a field of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, the race was soon narrowed down to two – Obama and Hillary Clinton – and even then Clinton was seen as the front runner. But the U.S. system of primaries exposes would-be national leaders to a level of scrutiny that doesn’t exist anywhere else, certainly not in Canada, where the way we pick leaders is closer to how they do things in Russia.

Who had ever heard of Vladimir Putin until Boris Yeltsin announced that he wanted him to be his successor? Before you know it, Putin was the next leader of Russia. After his eight-year term ran out, he made himself Prime Minister, so he’s still handling the reins of power, albeit, along with another appointee named Dmitry Medvedev serving as President. Would either of these men opt for a U.S.-type system of primaries, enabling everyday Russians to get a good look at them and their policies? I think not. That would be too democratic.

Likewise for Canada. We don’t elect our leaders at all. It’s more accurate to say that we appoint them, or better still, have them appointed for us by power brokers. Michael Ignatieff is the latest example.

Today, he stands a good chance of becoming our next prime minister. On his way to assuming the leadership of one of our two main political parties, what kind of scrutiny was he subjected to by the Canadian people, outside of running as an M.P. in his own riding? Somewhere between not much and nothing.

Let’s forget for a moment that Ignatieff is yet another professor. Let’s also forget that he left Canada over 30 years ago and has lived most of his life south of the border where he taught at Harvard. He returned and announced that he wanted to be the next Liberal leader. He ran, and lost to Stephane Dion, who for the next two years showed how not to be a national leader.

Then came last fall’s federal election, the Harper tactic to cut public funding of political parties, and the now infamous coalition, in which Ignatieff wisely kept to the sidelines. When it became apparent that the hapless Dion, whose party had just been rejected by three-quarters of Canada’s electorate, could become Prime Minister, even the most diehard Liberals realized that this country’s political machinations had stooped to a new low. Parliament was – I hate this word – prorogued, the Liberal leadership convention was cancelled, and Ignatieff was declared/appointed Liberal Leader.

Some democracy, eh?

I know that the U.S. presidential election of 2000 was stolen, which further inspired the Canadian Left to jump on that as an illustration of the evil dictatorship south of the border. But I would argue that all our elections are stolen.

While the U. S. presidential election is a long, drawn-out affair, it does give the American public an insight into who wants to be president. It exposes their face, their words, their policies, their flaws, even their hometown preachers who may have said a few things they shouldn’t have.

Is there any chance of Canada adopting a U.S.-type system of primaries, which would subject aspiring national leaders to intense scrutiny? No. Why not? Well, Canadians wouldn’t endure the pain for very long. We get sick and tired of things after a four-week election campaign. Apathy would win out, and before you know it no one would be appearing at those rallies.

The fact is that, recessions aside, we are an extremely fortunate people who just aren’t used to real democracy. A banana republic, but without the republic. Oh yes, and Happy New Year.