|
Politicians -- those who thrive long enough to make it to the top -- it seems adapt a kind of defence mechanism, an extra level of dogged self-preservation that kicks in whenever they find themselves trapped with no viable way to salvation. For seven long months Bill Clinton could convince his own face,that he wasn't really the just-a-little-more-advanced-than-puberty lecher, that just beneath the surface he knew he really was, even long after his complicity in the affair was sealed and made public. It may be this same blind vestigial instinct -- the inability to drop, even for a moment,the face of political infallibility -- that may, in the not-too-distant future, threaten to implode our own commander-in-chief. Consider what has transpired and what has come to light since 19 Pacific Rim leaders convened at the APEC summit meeting in Vancouver way back in November 1997: -Dozens of peaceful protesters (protesting in a legal demonstration against human rights violations, focused especially on Indonesia) are pepper-sprayed, allegedly "roughed up" by police, arrested and subsequently never charged with a criminal offence; -After numerous of the protesters file suit against the RCMP, various internal documents surface indicating that the highest elected official in our country -- furtively abbreviated "PM" -- wanted to be (and succeeded in being) personally involved in security arrangements for the summit; -Further documents reveal the unusual, and many argue unethical, efforts officials in the Prime Minister's Office went to placate now deposed dictator Suharto (the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister sent personal letters to the then Indonesian president assuring him his "comfort" was a priority -- in other words that he would not hear or see any protesters if he showed up for the summit); -Just as troubling, the revelation that Indonesian bodyguards inquired if it would be OK to shoot protesters who go to close into submission. RCMP officials indicated this was probably not a good idea--in fact "would not be tolerated" -- but then, inexplicably, allowed a number of these armed bodyguards into the country. The reality, of course, is that there is no good explanation, no golden idea that would explain away why our government felt it could so glibly trod on our most unalienable civil rights. The prime minister, like all hopelessly injured political animals, obviously feels a great burden of pressure -- internal as well as external -- to forestall divulging the bad explanation for as long as he can. The question is, whether sooner or later, why should we accept it? Unlike his fellow-scandal-stuck compatriot in Washington, Chretien's winged nose-dive of embarrassment is not the equivalent of a man (as some have drawn the comparison) and a husband perjuring himself in public, and the judicial forum, for soiling some half-harlot's dress somewhere in the back reaches of his elected office. The real truth is that by appeasing the ego of one South Asian despot back on that bleak autumn day in Vancouver Jean Chretien was, in reality, appeasing the ego of Jean Chretien. As Bruce Wallace writes in the Sept. 21 issue of Macleans, "A summit without him (Suharto) might have been deemed a failure," and thus an embarrassment. Probably what happened at APEC nearly one year ago is unlikely to be repeated. However, as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission begins to investigate whether our most senior elected offcials have in fact "unpardonably besmirched the rights of Canadians and besmirched our democratic principles," and that it is, as the solicitor-general has suggested, their prerogative to call before them whoever they want, it may consider the ante with which they have been presented and the weight of the misdemeanors that have been committed. No, this is not the defilement of some second-rate, bottom-heavy paramour in the shadows of one mid-life indescretion, this is the defilement of the foundation and the principles on which the social contract between a people and their leader is based. It now falls to the public rights commission, and to us, a soiled popular electorate, to set the precedent of how much self-gratification Canadians are willing to accept in their highest elected office. May we consider it long and hard, lest these vandals get away.
|
