I just read an interesting blog post by Sue Huff. She is a School Trustee with the Edmonton Public School Board and, obviously, a Blogger. She has just posted a thoughtful and practical piece on the controversy surrounding the recent comments by Minster Evans and MLA Doug Elniski. I really like her comments - because she agrees with my own views.
She ponders in her post about the impact these politicians who were "speaking their minds" will have on political discourse in our democracy. Will party discipline trump free speech? Will focus group tested safe messaging replace personal opinions of politicians? Will our governing class become incurious about new ideas? Will politicinas get spooked and become insecure in their values and beliefs? Will they respond by retreating to a political foetal position in the face of the realities of new media?
Sue Huff exemplifies the kind of leadership and trusteeship I was calling for in my paper presented to about 250 Alberta school trustees at the recent Alberta School Boards Association Summer General Meeting. In the paper entitled "A Contented Oyster Never Made a Pearl" I called up school School Trustees to take a leadership role in rethinking and reforming how we govern ourselves. She gets it and her recent blog post is all the proof you need to support that conclusion.
I think we need a more mature governance model in the face of Alberta's declining democracy. Sue makes a reinforcing point when she speaks about "The voting process in Alberta seems shallow to me; people vote for whoever showed up at their door, the party their family has always voted for, based on a 1/4 page flyer or the recommendation of a friend who is deemed 'up' on politics." We elect our governors. If we do a bad job in choosing who we grant our consent to govern us to, who is really to blame?
Citizens of Alberta have to re-imagine their place and what is accepted practice for politicans in our representative democracy. I applaud the kind of "unguarded" personal thoughts we have recently seen from two Alberta politcians. They have created forums for a broader and deeper discussion about Alberta society. For me it's all about free speech. I say use it wisely or lose it to mediocrity or mendacity!
Ken;
ReplyDeleteI will go and look at Sue's post and I am all for anything that moves Alberta politics from the wading pool and into the big kid's pool.
I don't think the reaction has really been about the politicians right to blog or about getting nipped by party discipline. In fact most of it has been about the content.
The clips I heard on the news from the public disagreed with what was said, not the right to say it.
I'll summon up my university philsophy and muddle through Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
By all means, let 'em all blog but like any honest writer they need to believe what they say and stand by it. That may mean fallout from the voting public.
Part of the whole political transparency thing involves taking responsibility.
And good on ya for being one who seems to do both in the postings.
Mike
It's not freedom of speech that is at issue, it's what has been said. It is only proper to confront ideas and opinions that conflict with one's own. Otherwise what's the point of free speech?
ReplyDeleteIris Evans seems to think that lack of education leads to mental illness, while Doug Erlinski has shown himself to be a dirty old man. They deserve all the blasting they get over this from those who disagree.
Twitter is not like sitting in a bar or standing at the water cooler. What you typed is there in black and white for anyone to print off and keep and, like e-mails, can easily be misinterpreted. They might think it's cool to Twitter, but is it really that cool when your MLA is doing it?
Yes George it is more about what is being said than free speech. But in the old-shool methods of command and control top down message massaging politics in Harper's Cons and increasingly in the Stelmach PS, the Iris' and Dougs adn others of the elected elite are loathed to say the kind things they did even if they believe them deeply.
ReplyDeleteIris does appear to be misinformed about the link between mental illness and education standing. You now get a more detailed sense from which you can evaluate her competencies to govern you.
Is Doug really a dirty old man, as you say, or just a typical "good old boy" in both his private and public life? Is that a distinction without a difference? Again you get to pass judgment on his competence to govern you but now you have more real information.
How do you feel about David Swann saying Iris's parenting comments were worse than the consequences of Bill44?
Do you think Rachel Notley is well grounded in her news conference reaction to Doug's comments or is she just paying tried and true gender politics in her responses?
Lots of interesting stuff happening in Alberta governance these days. This is partly because the web and social media has changed the political environment. The power now shifts to the networked individuals from the authority driven institutions.
And we are worried about what Alberta students post to their social networking accounts and how inappropriate posts may affect their future? Hmm .... seems that many have more skills than an MLA that is "a member of the cabinet policy committee on resources and environment, and deputy chair of the Heritage Fund committee, which oversees $15 billion of public funds." (from Don Braid, Calgary Herald)
ReplyDeleteMaybe we need an equivalent to Bill 44 to allow Albertans to opt-out of foolish statements from the government party?
Ken, thank you for your response (at 6:25). If you'll indulge me here I'll respond to it.
ReplyDeleteI went and read Rachel's blog post again (not as quickly this time) and I have to say that I like the idea of the messages not having to first be "approved from higher up." Mr. Harper, as an example, certainly appears to like to control what gets out and what doesn't regarding his party.
As for David Swann saying that Iris Evan's comments are worse than Bill 44, I'm guessing he means Section 11.1, the opt-out portion of the bill. If that's the case, he went a bit overboard. One minister's opinions pale in comparison to the insidious legal monster that is Section 11.1, but what is the Opposition going to do but play this up for all it's worth?
So, maybe now I get it. I was a bit blinded by what was being said and missed that what is more important is that these comments made it out at all. Less bullshit is a good thing - God knows I deal with enough of it in other parts of my life.
George