A BOMBSHELL? HARDLY
by George Jonas
National Post
April 11, 2005

I wonder if I'm more jaded than many of my colleagues or just older. In
either case, Jean Brault's testimony at Judge John Gomery's inquiry didn't
seem like a bombshell to me. True, there's a chance it may trigger an
election, and an election may result in a change of government. If so, it
would make Mr. Brault's evidence an early link in a historic chain of
events. That's called a spark -- or a footnote.

In my vocabulary, "bombshell" denotes something unexpected: not merely
explosive, but surprising. What was surprising about Mr. Brault's
allegations
and admissions? Very little. They confirmed suspicions about corruption in
the Liberal party -- the very suspicions that caused the Gomery inquiry to
be set up in the first place.

Confirming expectations is hardly a bombshell. We smelled a rat strongly
enough to convene an inquiry and, lo and behold, found one. Or two. A
bombshell, to me, would have been to find nothing.

I'm the odd man out, though. The media smell blood. Even that faithful Grit
war-horse, the CBC, is flaring its nostrils.

In Saturday's National Post, the editorial board published excerpts from
its
members' e-mails debating the impact of the Gomery inquiry. Interim
editorials editor Adam Radwanski seemed the least excited. He wondered if
Adscam was "just a Quebec issue." His sense was that average citizens
outside Quebec "are shrugging a bit." Sad as it may be, people expect
politicians to be corrupt. "There's an inclination among some Canadians to
figure it's nothing new."

Edmonton-based board member Lorne Gunter thought the scandal had
legs. Based on his sampling of Alberta call-in shows, he felt "the level of
Western discontent was high, high, high." Media reaction wasn't helping
the Liberals this time. "I think (and hope) that the Grits will be unable
to
escape this one."

The strongest view came from Comment editor Jonathan Kay. "The only
people who are shrugging it off," he wrote, "are the shrinking subset of
Canadians who cannot conceive of any government except a Liberal one."

Could I be such a person, I wondered, without even knowing it?

I suppose I do expect politicians to be corrupt. I'm shocked only when one
or another turns out not to be. But not being able to conceive of any
except
a Liberal government? Surely not. I dream of other government. This can't
be why Mr. Brault's evidence fails to stir me.

Then, a flash of insight. It may be true: I probably can't conceive of
Canada
having any but a Liberal government.

Opposition Leader Stephen Harper wouldn't necessarily try to avoid an
election. He wouldn't necessarily lose one, either. But if an election were
called and the Conservatives won it, I believe Canada would still emerge
with a Liberal government.

Here's why.

A political party can try going to the voters or try bringing the voters to
itself. For the first strategy, it must know where the voters are; for the
second, it should know where the party is. Canada's Conservatives haven't
been too sure of either. But knowing the Liberals' address, they've tried
to
pitch the Tory tent nearer and nearer the Grit tent.

In the last few weeks, worried that they might still miss the voters, Mr.
Harper and his lieutenants have decided to play it safe. Their spanking new
Conservative tent is now pitched right inside the tattered old Liberal
tent.
Voters can enter through the holes, courtesy of Mr. Brault & Co.

Does Mr. Brault's evidence make holes large enough for this? The
allegations
of a self-confessed launderer of corrupt funds need to be taken with a
grain
of salt. But looking at allegations with caution, or finding them
unsurprising, isn't the same as shrugging them off. Corruption isn't one
iota
the less outrageous for being corruption as usual. Saying that it's
difficult to
feel shocked by Mr. Brault's testimony isn't to say that it's difficult to
feel
outraged by it.

Whether or not Canadians are shocked, if enough of them feel outraged,
power may fall into Mr. Harper's lap -- ready or not. He may not be able to
avoid it despite his best efforts or the ingenuity of his closest advisors.

What then? There's no government without corruption. Money and sex
cross party lines. Fiscal scandals hound governments of the Left; sexual
scandals hound governments of the Right. Neither are immune to either.

This would suggest that kicking the rascals out is a waste of time -- but
it's
not. Kicking the rascals out is vital. It doesn't matter that a new
government
may be Liberal in all but name. What matters is that it will be new.
Replacing one set of swine at the trough with another set, far from being
futile, is the genius of democracy.

I'll switch metaphors. All nutrition ends up as waste, but a healthy body
politic, like a healthy body, requires cycles to function. Stagnant
corruption
is constipation; circulating corruption is relief. Elections may be as
unglamorous as going to the bathroom, but they're just as necessary. At one
point, eliminating incumbents becomes a matter of personal hygiene.

© National Post 2005

Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend