I'd really hoped we'd got over that two years ago.

What really gets me, though, is Harper's statement that he doesn't think it would be "principled to have a party dedicated to break up of [our? the?] country having a hand in running the government." Aside from providing a telling look into his viewpoint, it's purely anti-democratic. Like it or not, the Bloc's message resonates with enough Quebec voters that the people have given them forty-eight seats in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily true that every last Bloc voter have their hearts set on an independent Quebec. Isn't it more believable that Bloc voters do so because they like the idea of a party that will advance Quebec's interests on the national stage? Whatever their reasons, the Bloc has as much right to have a hand in running the government of Canada as any other party, so long as it has the support of the people to do so. To say that a specific party is unworthy to act in the government because some of its policies run counter to that government, outside of very rare and very specific circumstances that tend to end with "azi," strikes at the heart of the concept of democracy.
It doesn't matter, though. The Bloc is purely a regional party, and Harper is sure to get mileage by bashing it in the rest of Canada. Though I really don't like the implications of going down that path. I've never been one for the straightjacket theory of nation-states.
No comments:
Post a Comment