Introducing the Harper Institute for Spreading Wingnuttia

Embassy reports on an interview with Steven Fletcher on the Harper government's plans to "spread democracy" around the world. But there's plenty of reason for concern as to just what kind of "democracy" the Cons plan to spread:

What exactly have you been doing on democratic governance and where do you see this issue and the non-partisan centre going over the next little while?

"In our platform, we made the promotion of bringing democratic values on the world one of the major focuses of our foreign policy. And this will be a new agency, non-partisan agency that will promote democracy abroad in emerging democracies to help build the institutions that make democracy function. This will be an agency that will work throughout the world and will ensure, or help ensure, that there will be healthy democracies amongst long-term stable growth that respects human rights right across the board....

"We need to help countries build the fundamentals of democracy, which include functioning political parties that are purpose driven and principled. We want to make sure that the other pillars that are important for democracy, such as human rights, freedom of the media, that there's significant civic participation from all quarters of a particular society, that women's voices are heard where that's not at the level we would like. And obviously free and safe elections."

Will your work be focused specifically on political parties or on some of the other traditional activities that CIDA has done, such as working with bureaucracies?

"We will be working with all stakeholders that are important in any functioning democracy. So that includes, first of all, the people, and helping grassroots organizations get organized into a party structure. We want to make sure that the institutions that make democracy possible are there, everything from a free media to the union movement, and everything in between. But it will be, our goal will be to develop or help develop principle-driven parties so that the people of these countries have a clear choice when it comes to advancing their country's goals and objectives."
...
Since Iraq, some have seen democracy promotion as a tainted idea, something that serves ulterior motives. How do you counter those arguments that, first of all, Canada shouldn't be working with political parties? And how do you respond to people who look upon it as a neo-Imperialist idea?

"(P)eople who say what you just described, what is their alternative? And I think the alternative to democracy is not consistent with Canadian values and we are the Canadian government. And it will be a made-in-Canada agency to promote Canadian values."
...
Have you spoken to the opposition parties as you're moving ahead on this?

"It will happen. I am relying on the Foreign Affairs and International Development [committee] report that came out in the last Parliament, and I certainly have a good sense of where parties are based on that....

"When things settle down on that front and we get the economic stimulus package through Parliament, I think that would be an opportune time to re-engage other parties."

Now, it's true that the idea of the centre arises out of a committee report with multi-party input. But the idea seems to have taken a few serious turns for the worse in the meantime.

After all, the idea of a "non-partisan" agency might seem entirely positive on its face. But it's rather less so when that term is now being defined by a party which has tried to claim non-partisanship in, say, appointing one of its key fund-raisers as the gatekeeper for federal civil service positions.

That goes doubly when the project is otherwise dripping with Con code words. We know all too well that "made in Canada" as applied by the Harper government on issues like climate change has tended to mean "sticking a finger in the eye of international consensus". (On that front, it surely can't be reassuring that Fletcher doesn't seem to think there are any lessons to be drawn from Bushco's mess in Iraq.)

And it's not hard to see obvious potential for abuse in the Cons' determinations as to what constitutes a "principle-driven party" which operates consistently with their definition of "Canadian values".

Of course, all of those concerns might be alleviated if the structure was actually being developed in a non-partisan or multi-partisan manner. But when the Cons have unilaterally decided that they don't need to consult with anybody else in setting up the agency, it seems far too likely that the result will be to favour the development of Con-friendly parties abroad rather than to actually promote democracy. And that doesn't figure to be a positive development either for the countries affected, or for Canada's position in the world.