Photo credit: Nathan Denette / THE CANADIAN PRESS
I think the Globe and Mail headline writers got it right when they said the Conservatives are “rebranding” the government with the name of Stephen Harper. But according to the PMO, it’s no big deal because it is “a long-standing practice that accurately reflects the government’s leadership.”
It’s true, as others have pointed out, that the colloquial use of “Harper government” has been generously employed by the media in the past five years. But over time it’s certainly become an accurate designation.
No government, with exception to the previous one, has worked this hard to brand a government around a single man. As you no doubt recall, there’s even a shrine of the prime minister, which one might call a cult of personality, hanging in the House of Commons.
The Conservative website has actually changed quite a bit since I wrote about that in 2008. Now it actually has more than Stephen Harper pictures adorning the front page, although it still has a picture of the hapless opposition leader, transposing Dion with Ignatieff.
I’m not sure what’s behind the directive that federal communications should refer the government of Canada to the “Harper Government.” I suppose it makes little difference anyway, given the fact that it’s only formalizing what is already the unspoken status quo. I am, however, quite sure of what others are likely to make of it.
The idea of the government being controlled by a powerful centralized authority figure isn’t going to appeal to people, which is certainly what Harper has become in the past five years. What’s surprising is how painfully transparent that centralization of power has become, and equally opaque the governance of a leader who once philosophized about openness and accountability.
The branding of the Canadian government with Conservative Party colours and logos has been an altogether unsubtle and unsettling part of government services since their so-called “Economic Action Plan” came into being. You know the one I’m talking about, right? There’s a sign standing next to every shoeshine stand and soda pop machine from here to Antigonish.
The stimulus plan that almost never was, that is until the “coalition of socialists and separatists” almost tore Canada asunder, necessitating the inauspicious allocation of public money for dubious make-work projects. There were a few mental lapses at that time as well, when party logos began appearing on novelty cheques announcing the lottery winners of stimulus projects.
Count me among the people who don’t like the idea of a government being named after an individual. It’s certainly accurate to call it the Gaddafi government in Libya, but I should hope the decisions made for this country are being discussed in a somewhat more democratic manner than Libya.
The timing of this story isn’t exactly fortuitous, considering the current allegations of the in-and-out election spending facing the party. But I would certainly hesitate to join the editorializing of the CBC’s Greg Weston and call it a “scandal.” Not only are Canadians sick to death of the constant scandal-roulette played by the media, the polls show that they have stopped being an effective swayer in the political climate any longer. Presumably because nobody believes it after five years of sensationalizing.
Take the Bev Oda affair as an example. There is arguably far more to worry about, and more related to the above story, with regards to the Oda “not” memo than the accounting practices of a party that out-fundraises every other political party combined anyway.
I’m quite convinced at this point, and John Baird’s odd behaviour only reinforced it, that Bev Oda’s decision to fund Kairos was overruled by the PMO, and the act covered for by the international minister. It’s the only explicable reason for the fact she hasn’t been fired for incompetence.
In this vein, the Harper government designation makes perfect sense. Though I can’t quite understand why the party would want to give the impression that we’re being governed by the decisions of one man.
Count me among the people who don’t like the idea of a government being named after an individual.
*******
Well, let’s see … so far, we’ve got “Maoist”, and “Stalinist”.
Unless I’m mistaken, the term “Harperist”, has so far failed to clench a stranglin’ hold upon this once semi-socialist land.
Give us time….
Certainly I don’t think it’ll come to that. Generally speaking, history proves that our parliamentary democracy is too rigorously safeguarded to ever provide one figure the opportunity to permanently disfigure the country. Except for Trudeau. And Mulroney. And Chretien. And… what was I saying again?
It doesn’t matter what you were saying again. Nor does it matter what I’m saying. The whole point is to say something….
By allowing ourselves to engage our freedom of expression, we are most definitely assured of at least a marginal chance of assuring that our efforts at eloquence, and elegance, will possibly contribute to warding off the ravages of premature Anheuser’s.
It’s really worth it.
And it tastes great.
I absolutely agree. To be honest, some in the PMO seem to be going too far. Repainting rescue planes red and white? That’s a tacky idea (I side with Mackay 100% on this one). Branding the government after the Prime Minister? Another hyper-partisan idea. If those in the PMO had any sense, they should change it back to the “Government of Canada.” Afterall, this government belongs to the PEOPLE, not to Harper as much I like what he is doing.
To celebrate, here’s a Band that takes no prisoners:
Mötley Crüe – Girls, Girls, Girls
Mötley Crüe – Kickstart My Heart
**
I’m becoming more and more concerned about the centralization of power in the PMO.This has been going on for a long time, but has accelerated under Mr. Harper. The end goal appears to be to make the Prime Minister into a President.While some may welcome this, I prefer the idea of the position being “first among equals” with functioning MPs who have the ability to form their own opinions and influence policy.I will always to be proud to say I’m a Canadian, but a Harperian (or the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he/she may be)not so much.
I wonder what the response of our Tea Party friends to the south if the U.S. Government started refering to itself as the “Obama Government” I suspect the response would be somewhat less muted than it is here.
Much ado about nothing.
Governments in and out of democracy have historically been referenced by the name of their leaders.
The Borden, the King, the Trudeau, the Chretien gov’t, etc. etc. etc.
As for this: “… I can’t quite understand why the party would want to give the impression that we’re being governed by the decisions of one man.”
Leaders are individuals, not commitees. We are being led, not governed, by one elected individual.
MM
The term ‘Harper Government’ was initiated by the media,
deliberately used to paint PMSH as a one man show,
and disassociate PMSH and his cabinet from the Govt of Canada.
The entire liberal media was sure, absolutely positive,
PMSH would not last a year in government,
that he would become a footnote in the history books.
I remember this subject came up on numerous BloggingTorie posts,
how the media used ‘Harper Govt’ with their never ending criticism,
and many commentors thought PMSH should embrace the term,
just go with it to lessen the negative effect.
The media criticizing something they initiated/created is rather funny, imo.
‘Harper Government is a one man show’,
how dare he suggest the government is a one man show!
Too funny.
I saw this story on The National CBC news last night. They were painting it as some kind of scandal with Mansbridge & Terry Mildew-ski. The odd thing is, CBC itself ALWAYS calls it “The Harper Government” , along with all the Liberal media in their opinion pieces. They call Obama..PRESIDENT OBAMA, but when speaking of our prime Minister, its always Harper.
He’s just accomadating all of them. Now their complaining. Bit of hypocricy, now isn’t it?
It is “the Harper Govt.” anyways, because the Coalition don’t help in anything, except to deny and complain, and play games for POWER.
True, media refers to Harper majority, Harper government, Harper Harper Harper,
liberal media tilled the soil, planted the seeds, Harper harvests the crop.
You keep grasping there Adrian and one of these days your gonna catch a real one. In the mean time not so much. There has always been a differentiation between the political arm of government, Trudeau, Chretien, Martin etc and the bureaucratic arm of government, the Government of Canada. Politicians come and politicians go but the bureaucracy goes on forever.
Catch a real what?
This isn’t about what the Conservative Party or the media call the government – as described in the article:
…a directive went out to public servants late last year that “Government of Canada” in federal communications should be replaced by the words “Harper Government.”
Having public servants use the term Harper Government is communications is beyond the pale – unless anyone has evidence, comparing this to Chretien et al is incorrect. The Liberal Party and the media may have refereed to it as the Chretien Government, but there was never a memo released to the bureaucracy to do the same.
So what next? Do we get a new flag with Harper’s head in the middle. Official communications from the government should be from the Government of Canada – Harper, like all PM’s, is temporary. Canada is forever.
I was accused of hyperbole for using this phrase in a comment a yesr ago, but I’ll say it again.
Heil Harper!
When the government of my country chooses to officially identify itself as the “Harper government” (or anybody else’s) it’s time to take a good hard look at just how centralized power has become in Canada.
Harper may or may not be a good PM (ask me in 50 years). But what about the next guy who identifies the governemnt with himself? Or the one after that?
New Canadian Anthem for Stevie.
http://deadbrokedad.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-canadian-anthemo-harper-land.html