May 9, 2002

Violence in Politics

The recent rash of violence in BC politics may be a symptom of a broken political system. There will always be extremists who will look for an excuse to break the law. It would be reassuring if all of the recent acts of violence could be dismissed as the acts of such irresponsible fools, but we might be engaged in denial to dismiss those acts as merely representing a few hooligans.

No responsible person, let alone a person in a position of leadership, will ever condone the use of violence. Harassment at airports, trashing a mall, demonstrations in residential neighbourhoods and forced eviction of staff from their office are recent examples of actions that have nothing in common with the long tradition of peaceful civil disobedience as a form of political action. The most extreme of the BC incidents, fire bombing the Premier's constituency office and his wife's school office, could have resulted in the loss of life.

Ujjal Dosanjh's constituency office was also fire bombed. Glen Clark's home was the target of demonstrations and media attention for months. NDP MLAs also had their offices occupied (although never with the eviction of the staff). Extreme behaviour is not new to BC politics but rarely have we seen so much in so short a time.

The apparent escalation of violent reaction to political events may have roots in the images of protesters at international trade meetings. Not content to express their opinions while parading, some of those demonstrators threw projectiles at the police and attempted to dismantle fencing and cross barricades. Ghandi would not have approved of these tactics.

Acts of violence are unlikely to persuade others. In fact, anyone following Premier Campbell's reaction to the violence can see that he gains strength from outrageous behaviour. The Premier is able to portray himself as "clearly going forward into the new era" in spite of irresponsible resistance; he is able to unfairly characterize his critics as being sympathetic to the hooligans. The customary response to acts of violence is to minimize publicity so as to discourage "copycats". A member of the Premier's backbench took the opportunity, following several media commentaries, to focus his legislative "member's statement" on the incidents.

Responsible leaders are not always able to appeal to hooligans to halt their counterproductive behaviour. That behavior is rooted in anger and frustration, not only with the actions of the Campbell government, but with the failure of the political system to provide a constructive alternative.

BC is not going through a period of public debate on who should benefit and by how much, e.g. how to share the spoils while everyone benefits. BC is experiencing radical policy changes that severely hurt tens of thousands of people while a very small percentage in the six figure income set reap substantial benefits. The very poor and marginally employable are being further starved off welfare. Seniors are being told that residential care in their final years is too expensive to provide. Thousands of public sector workers are being told "good luck in the private sector".

A lot of people are very angry and have no constructive way to focus that anger. In previous decades that anger would be captured by the official opposition and used to organize political resistance. The 1983 Solidarity Movement may have concerned some with its enormous demonstrations and threatened general strike, but the events of that era were within the scope of traditional tactics for fighting unpopular governments. No one in that era would have expected to see regular reports of hooligan type activity.

It would be a mistake to simply hope the recent violence will come to an end. Perhaps the NDP will spring from the ashes and offer a positive alternative for constructively channeling the energy of unhappy citizens. Jenny Kwan and Joy MacPhail are certainly doing everything in their power to engage in rational debate on each of the government's changes. A lot of residual anger at the former government may get in the way of the NDP being able to appeal to the kind of folks who are recklessly striking out. Whether those obstacles can be overcome will be tested over the next three years. Meanwhile there is a danger of more counterproductive activity from those who feel that they have no legitimate outlet for their anger.

The Campbell government could defuse this potentially dangerous situation by providing the kind of government that was originally promised. In his June 5th swearing in speech, Premier Campbell said "Truly responsible government is not just answerable to the Legislature. Truly responsible government invites public participation and open and honest dialogue."

If people felt that their government was "truly responsible" then they might discover a constructive channel where they could apply their energies. Thirty day limits for submissions to reviews with predetermined outcomes are not evidence of a "truly responsible" government.