The Emerson betrayal

The philosophical conception of democratic politics in Canada rides on the outcome of the Emerson affair, and it’s a battle the citizens cannot afford to lose

by Kevin Potvin <kpotvin@republic-news.org>

The first two callers on Bill Good’s all-important Monday morning CKNW radio interview with Vancouver Kingsway MP David Emerson were a failed Conservative party candidate, followed by ex-Conservative Prime Minister Kim Campbell, phoning in from Madrid. Over a thousand Vancouver-Kingsway constituents crowded the auditorium at Sir Charles Tupper high school on the weekend to protest Emerson’s quick post-election crossing of the floor from his defeated Liberals to the winning Conservatives. Three hundred others rallied in front of his constituency office on Kingsway on Sunday. There can be no doubt that demand for air-time was extremely high in the ten minutes Good and Emerson allotted for callers. Not a single Vancouver-Kingsway constituent made it on the air, but an overseas caller from Spain—probably the best possible caller Emerson could have possibly arranged—made it through right off the bat. “I know Dave, Hi Dave!” Campbell chirped. “I don’t consider him a Liberal or a Conservative,” she said, “I consider him to represent the party of British Columbia.”

At the end of the call, Emerson chuckled, “Thanks Kim,” sounding for all the world like it had been a prearranged hit. This odd exchange followed 20 minutes in which Emerson reiterated to Bill Good his hard line about not being a partisan politician, but instead one who only thinks about what might be best for his constituents—in a riding where he has never lived: a largely working-class and ethnic riding in the east side of Vancouver, now represented by a white middle-class Conservative multi-millionaire corporate executive. And one who, evidently, plays the petty games of intense partisan politics as well as the best of them.

Despite widespread rumours that Emerson would do the right thing and resign to run in a by-election, Emerson used his first media appearance in a stormy week to dismiss completely the hundreds of constituents protesting his move, and to flatly refuse to consider confirming his dramatic crossing of the floor with the voters. Instead, he pointed to “major players” who backed him on his move, most notably, Gordon Campbell, the premier of the province, and Sam Sullivan, the mayor of Vancouver—neither of whom are constituents in Vancouver Kingsway.

In pointing to this support, even in the face of widespread popular disapproval (a poll reported that fewer than 25% of British Columbians support the move), Emerson has inadvertently brought to the fore an age-old cleavage buried in the roots of democratic politics in Canada.

There are two conceptions of what democratically managed government in Canada is meant to produce. Wealthy elites, corporate boardrooms, and foreign investors and bankers conceive of the democratic board of oversight that is the Parliament as a necessary evil that serves to quell and dissipate popular discontent with the harsh bureaucratic policies the commercial interests of the country require to maximize profits. The citizens conceive of democratic government as a means by which they can collectively divert, soften, and outlaw those policies most harmful to them and most heavily pressed for by the wealthy, the corporate boardrooms, and the foreign investors and bankers—that is, “the powerful.”

For the powerful and their spokespeople in the popular media, it makes perfect sense that a highly successful corporate executive should have the freedom to thwart the democratic will of the people and cross the floor in order to continue doing his good work in the governing cabinet. For corporate executive Emerson, the move is no more significant than if he left the CEO’s office at Slocan Forest Products to become the CEO of Canfor. Party labels, for him, are just corporate brands for essentially the same thing. From his point of view, party platforms, electoral rhetoric, promises, and organizing efforts are all just part of the necessary evil of the burden of democratic politics. Of course, it can all be dismissed once an election is over—doesn’t everyone know that campaigning is all a silly charade?

But from the citizens’ point of view—where elected representa-tives are expected to speak for them in the corridors of power—the platforms, the election rhetoric, the promises, and the organizing efforts are taken quite seriously. While voters are, of course, suspicious of all campaigns, they remain the subject of those campaigns. Their suspicion is quite different from the cynicism of the powerful, however similar the two expressions might sound.

Here is the source of Emerson’s probably very genuine bafflement at the huge public outcry over his move. He saw popular suspicions of all politicians as echoes of his class’s cynicism regarding democratic politics. But it’s not—the two are in fact completely opposite. This critical misread of the popular mind seems widespread among the powerful. Political leaders Sam Sullivan, Gordon Campbell, and Stephen Harper appear to be all as helplessly susceptible to it as business leader David Emerson is.

The outcome of this drama is important. Nothing in law can force Emerson to step down. Only popular pressure can possibly succeed in reasserting the citizens’ expectations of democratic politics. If the people allow the powerful to keep Emerson lodged in place, they will have allowed the powerful to successfully assert their own elitist conception of what democratic government is for. If, on the other hand, Emerson is forced out, the citizens’ conception of the purpose of democratic government might prevail.

It’s a watershed moment either way it goes.

****