Count Ignatieff. In.

There will be many lines along which the Conservatives will attack the Liberals in the next election campaign but one will stand out. Having an extensive foreign experience, being known and respected abroad can be played out as a sign that a person with such characteristic is not a good Canadian. Read any Internet forum and the international experience of the new Liberal Party leader emerges as the main objection that disqualifies him from being a prime minister in the eyes of many Canadians. They call it “he lived abroad”. The official campaign will not be different.

Targeting a single person for what and who they are has become a standard of the Conservatives’ partisan politics. “Can you imagine a man, who spent years outside Canada to be a prime minister of this country?” will be a follow-up on the last year’s mantra “Can you imagine Stephan Dion to be your prime minister?”. Of course, Canadians do no vote for a prime minister but a potentially decisive number of Canadians does hold a belief that they do as was demonstrated last year during the parliament crisis.

Another point is nationalism. Stephen Harper was very quick in hitting on the very dangerous pseudo-patriotic string during the last year’s parliamentary crisis, the attack that peaked with a pure lie. Harper claimed that the three political leaders who signed the coalition treaty didn’t do so with a Canadian flag in the background. It was pathetic, sure, but heyday patriots bought it as well as a even more pathetic Harper’s follow up (flags pushed aside). Simplifying is the essence of politics but at times it borders on primitivism.

Finally, the Conservatives has become a one-man party over the past few years and simply do not have a candidate that would be on par with Michael Ignatieff. Personal attack, beyond the usual campaign standards, is inevitable.

Harper is a brilliant politician, a master of partisan politics, of the realpolitik. Otherwise he wouldn’t be able to sustain his primeministership for so long with a minority government. But his ability as prime minister ends with divide et impera. And the trouble with this tactics is it works only for Harper and his immediate clique in the Conservative party.

Ignatieff said something very similar at the Liberals’ convention over the weekend when he sent a message directly to Stephen Harper. “For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region and individual against individual. When your power was threatened last November, you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.”

This, however, is not a mere political, partisan statement. This is a political analysis. But the phrasing is spot on, target audience is Canadian public at its most inclusive definition. Ignatieff is occasionally criticized for being too academic, too scientific and too elitist. He is all those things and it is appreciated where and when necessary. But in Vancouver he proved more-less conclusively that there is a different Ignatieff. The fact that the Conservatives are already targeting his international experience via viral Internet campaign is a definitive proof that Ignatieff and the Liberal party are on the right track. And the only alternative the Conservatives can offer is blatant nationalism.

To sing or not to sing

Is singing of a national anthem on every school morning an act of true patriotism? Or is it a perfect example of sunshine patriotism? Does it make people more loyal to their countries? Does it make them more Canadian or American? Does an anthem stand for a country? Its people? Or political ideas and/or personal beliefs associated with them?

Most of Canadian kids, or kids in Canada, start they school day with the anthem. It’s not mandatory, but most schools stick to the daily ritual. But lo and behold, Belleisle Elementary in New Brunswick’s Springfield abolished the practice after some parents expressed their wishes that their children do not participate at singing. It triggered accusation of political correctness running wild (courtesy of Conservative MP Keith Ashfield) and another Tory MP, Mike Allen, said that there was nothing more inclusive than Oh Canada.

Oh really?

How inclusive is a national anthem that has two language versions with two very different meanings.

English (official)

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

French (official) – English translation

Ô Canada! – O Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux, – Land of our forefathers
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! – Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
Car ton bras sait porter l’épée, – As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
Il sait porter la croix! – So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Ton histoire est une épopée – Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
Des plus brillants exploits. – Thy valour steeped in faith
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée, – Will protect our homes and our rights
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits – Will protect our homes and our rights.
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

One may question political correctness, patriotism of those who have issues with singing the anthem, their religious motifs and even reasons why they came to Canada in the first place. But if somebody feels the need to sing an anthem every morning, they may as well do it in the privacy of their own home. Forcing somebody to sing an anthem will not turn them into a patriot. Why not organize an anthem singing session every morning in the school gym and give kids and their parents freedom to participate or opt out?

But the real issue shouldn’t be whether to sing or not sing. Even if every single human being in Canada sang the national anthem every morning, it wouldn’t make the country more united. The anthem would be still sung in two languages, by two communities, each wowing to protect something else. But it’s easier to discuss a marginal issue than to deal with the real question.

Harper’s rhetoric threatens Canada

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative party can’t enjoy the status of being the majority political entity in the House of Commons, and, de facto, lost the House’s confidence. Harper is now, apparently, loosing the plot and plays very dangerous game with only objective – to stir up the public emotions to extremes in a hope to stay in power.

During the Tuesday question period, Harper managed to sink into the lowest level of vulgar nationalistic populism and criticized the coalition for not having a Canadian flag behind them – when they signed the treaty in one of the rooms of the House of Commons.

There were two Canadian flags, one at each side of the table.

It would have to take a wide-angle camera to get them and the three leaders in the picture. And that’s exactly what Harper is missing. Wide picture.

By branding the coalition as a threat to the Canada unity, Harper decided to alienate Quebec and to turn the western Canada, his electoral base, against the francophone province, which, at the moment, is still an integral part of Canada. As is Alberta. Forgetting in the proces, that he himself relied on support of the Bloc few years ago while in opposition and recognized Quebec as a nation. Of course, sovereignist agenda of the Bloc Québécois is not making an abrupt exit. However, in the current economic situation, most of what’s good for Quebec is good for Canada and vice versa and in that sense, Bloc’s support for the Liberal/NDP coalition makes a lot of sense.

At the moment, however, the economic agenda is only one part of the debate. The other half is democracy. The Harper’s Conservatives tried to undermine the opposition financially by tweaking rules about political parties financing to suit themselves. They proposed to withdraw the right to strike from the public sector workers. And then they managed to pull out their own Watergate and produced an unauthorized (read illegal) recording of the private NDP’s MPs phone conversation. Harper is now trying to avoid the inevitable by postponing the confidence vote and, potentially, adjourning the parliament. In that sense, the coalition is putting the country first – it’s trying to prevent Stephen Harper quest to establish the Conservatives as the permanent election winner.

Or is the all part of Harper’s intention to make the parliament dysfunctional, force in the new election whatever the cost and get the majority? He wouldn’t be the first autocratic, democratically elected leader of a party to do so.

(Written for World Business Press Online)