A newspaper editorial in the issue before a national election, especially in a political paper, and most especially in an unapologetically opinionated political paper, should probably discuss the issues of the election, and possibly endorse one or another of the campaigns.

Instead, this editorial wishes to look at the election the way we look at all other national elections in countries other than our own. When noting that the right wing nationalists won in, say, Australia, or that the leftists won in Spain, we don't here in Canada pay much attention to obtuse national issues in those places or to the intricate policy statements of the competing parties, or to campaign gaffes that swing momentum in the media. All we remark upon is that the people of Australia, or Spain, or wherever, have swung to the right, or to the left.

We have utter faith that the outcome of a national election is an accurate and comprehensive reflection of where the people in that nation are at. We don't check the closeness of the popular vote, or the number of opposition seats, or whether it is a minority or majority government for the winner. We simply look at the prime minister or president, and say, “That is the current embodiment of the national spirit of that people.”

Looked at from this distant, outside, international point of view, what are the possible outcomes of the June 28 balloting? On the one hand, Canada will project to our regional partners, to our fellow Commonwealth nations, and to people who read papers in cafés in capitals all over Africa, Asia, and Europe, the face of Paul Martin, multi-millionaire shipping tycoon, fiscal conservative, and straight-laced business kind of guy. On the other hand, Canada will project around the world the vision of Stephen Harper, intellectual policy wonk, social conservative, and religiously-oriented kind of guy.

In both cases, June 29 papers will tell the world Canada is moving closer to the US, is likely to pursue opportunities in missile defence contracts, is likely to continue squeezing out its famous social welfare state apparatus, will likely ratchet up its privatization of public assets, and will likely continue promoting globalization of the financial industries.

Canada does not swing a lot of weight in foreign capitals, but its mention does evoke a distinct facial expression. It's bizarre geography—most of its population stretched in a thin line along the endless border with that behemoth, the USA—makes most of the world wonder how such a country could even come into being, much less sustain itself into the 21 st Century.

There are the famous attributes we know we are known for around the world: implacable politeness, a light military presence, and a predisposition toward multilateralist arrangements.

Lately, a few prominent and closely watched moves by our government leaders have added to, or altered, these attributes. A gaffe by a minister calling the US president a moron raised eyebrows. The previous prime minister's circumvention of US pressures to join the Coalition Authority launching an attack on Iraq left a deeper impression. Canada's ambivalence toward the Kyoto Accord has left an equally deep, if opposite, impression.

A change in anyone's government gets far more attention than an election that returns the incumbent government to office. On June 28, if there is a change, it will be noted around the world that it was a swing to the right, and a swing equally importantly toward the US camp. Such a result will profoundly alter what the name Canada will evoke in the minds of those living elsewhere, who maintain an international outlook the way we do, when we consider them and their elections. This consideration should also accompany those in their final internal deliberations upon entering the booth. Whoever the Prime Minister is after the election, he will be understood around the world to embody our national expression to the outside world.

****