The Liberal Focus on Harper's Contempt for Democracy

“There he goes again with this word ‘bickering.’ This is a debate, Mr. Harper. This is a democracy...You keep talking about Parliament as if it’s this little debating society that’s a pesky interference in your rule of the country. It’s not.”

Michael Ignatieff, Leaders' debate, April 12, 2011.

Ignatieff kept returning to this theme of democracy in the debate. Even when asked about Canadian foreign policy, he returned to hammer the idea that Canada cannot advance its values abroad when democracy was being undermined at home. What was he on about, anyway? It is hard to pitch the importance of democracy the way you can tax cuts and raising the employment rates. But it is so much more important. Ignatieff is on to something crucial here, and it is vital that Canadians not miss it.

The issue is political accountability and the realization of deliberative democracy. Which simply means that government in a democracy is supposed to be accountable to the people, and decisions are supposed to made through a process in which the people are able to meaningfully participate. One of the great strengths of democracy rests on the twin ideas that decisions will be better, and will enjoy wider and more enduring support from the public, precisely because they are made through a process of debate and deliberation in which the people play a meaningful role. 

Abuse of Detainees in Afghanistan and the Rule of Law

Photo - MCpl Brian Walsh/DND

As we mentioned in an earlier post, we believe that the rule of law ought to be an issue in this election. In particular, how each of the parties would likely conduct itself as a government from the perspective of the rule of law. To what extent would a government formed by any particular party respect and give effect to individual rights? To what degree would it comply with its obligations under domestic and international law? Moreover, combining aspects of the rule of law and related principles of democratic accountability, how would the government respond to allegations that government agencies had violated the law? How confident could the public be that such charges would be investigated in an objective and transparent manner, with full disclosure of information to the inquiry, and to the public?

Redacted Email on Treatment of Detainees

We plan to explore these questions, in part by looking at some of the incidents of the past few years. There is, for example, the allegations that Canadian Forces personnel were complicit in or at least had knowledge of the abuse and possible torture of suspected Afghan insurgents detained and turned over by the Canadian Forces, at the hands of agents of the Afghan government. There is considerable evidence that detainees captured and turned over by the CF were indeed tortured, though there remain questions regarding the extent to which the government knew or should have known that they would be tortured. These questions raise the possibility that Canada was in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which it is a party, and possibly even guilty of war crimes and violations of the torture convention.