Alors qu'est-ce qu'on fait (part 3)
I'm back - again. I had two chaotic weeks after getting a job as research assistant to my Constitutional law professor But I should have more free time now. If anyone was happy of my absence - good for you. If anyone was unhappy (which I doubt), I'm sorry.
In a couple of previous posts I argued that the future of the Liberal party lies neither on the Left nor on the Right. Here is, finaly a (hopefully logical) conclusion of that argument:
Being a resolutely centrist party is the best option we have – by far. Of course, that’s what the Liberal party was always supposed to be. So we might be tempted to say that since it apparently hasn’t worked the last time around, it’s become a recipe for failure. I do not think such an assessment would be right. In fact, if I think we failed in the last election at least partly because we have not been good centrists. What then, does being a centrist party mean?
Pour commencer, contrairement aux prétentions de certains idéologues de gauche ou de droite, un parti centriste n’est pas un parti sans principes ou sans idées. C’est un parti qui, s’il considère un nombre moins important de principes comme fondamentaux et non-susceptibles d’être contrebalancés par d’autres, n’est est que plus dévoué à ceux qu’il conçoit comme tels. Ces principes, pour notre parti, ont historiquement été la liberté individuelle, la justice sociale, et l’unité de notre pays.
Once those basics are firmly established, being a centrist party means having an open mind. It means having the capacity to adapt and to adopt policy ideas that are consistent with these values, if they help make better the life of individual Canadians and of the Canadian society as a whole without exerting a price too heavy for Canada’s means. A centrist party should take on such policies whatever the label that some might attach to those policies – it doesn’t matter whether a balanced budget has been called a right-wing priority or that child care might have been a left-wing one. Since they serve purposes that are greater than the scale of the traditional political spectrum, whether it be prosperity or human development, they ought to be endorsed by a centrist party, for they inevitably have some “left-wing” and some “right wing” aspects. The challenges that we used to call those of tomorrow, but which have become those of today, such as environment and economic competitiveness in a knowledge economy, are not going to be met except by policies that have, to borrow an expression from constitutional law, a “double aspect”.
Un parti centriste doit, de plus, et c’est peut-être là que nous avons surtout failli lors des années que notre parti a passées au pouvoir, donner une cohérence à l’ensemble des politiques et des idées qu’il a ainsi adoptées. Cela peut, certes, être plus difficile à faire pour nous que pour un parti qui adhère obstinément à une seule idée fixe, mais cela n’est pas impossible pour autant. Il suffit de montrer comment chaque mesure prise se rattache à nos valeurs de base telles que la justice sociale, le développement économique et l’unité canadienne et comment elle nous aidera à s’approcher de ces objectifs. Tant et aussi longtemps que ce travail est fait rigoureusement, nous ne serons pas obligés de nous limités à nous limiter à un nombre arbitraire et nécessairement trop réduit de « priorités » hétéroclites comme Stephen Harper le fait, sans pour autant être le parti désorienté que nous avons trop souvent été ces dernières années.
In short, the political centre is our party’s “home” and should remain it. Being a centrist party requires that we be rigorous and coherent, but allows us to implement policies that will actually improve people’s lives, without worrying about the way they can be characterized by those opposed to them because of some narrow ideological viewpoint. What policies will those be? That, I think, is one of the things the leadership race will have to determine, maybe the most important thing. Personally, I would very much like to see a commitment to universities – but as a university student I have to admit to a “certain” bias.
In a couple of previous posts I argued that the future of the Liberal party lies neither on the Left nor on the Right. Here is, finaly a (hopefully logical) conclusion of that argument:
Being a resolutely centrist party is the best option we have – by far. Of course, that’s what the Liberal party was always supposed to be. So we might be tempted to say that since it apparently hasn’t worked the last time around, it’s become a recipe for failure. I do not think such an assessment would be right. In fact, if I think we failed in the last election at least partly because we have not been good centrists. What then, does being a centrist party mean?
Pour commencer, contrairement aux prétentions de certains idéologues de gauche ou de droite, un parti centriste n’est pas un parti sans principes ou sans idées. C’est un parti qui, s’il considère un nombre moins important de principes comme fondamentaux et non-susceptibles d’être contrebalancés par d’autres, n’est est que plus dévoué à ceux qu’il conçoit comme tels. Ces principes, pour notre parti, ont historiquement été la liberté individuelle, la justice sociale, et l’unité de notre pays.
Once those basics are firmly established, being a centrist party means having an open mind. It means having the capacity to adapt and to adopt policy ideas that are consistent with these values, if they help make better the life of individual Canadians and of the Canadian society as a whole without exerting a price too heavy for Canada’s means. A centrist party should take on such policies whatever the label that some might attach to those policies – it doesn’t matter whether a balanced budget has been called a right-wing priority or that child care might have been a left-wing one. Since they serve purposes that are greater than the scale of the traditional political spectrum, whether it be prosperity or human development, they ought to be endorsed by a centrist party, for they inevitably have some “left-wing” and some “right wing” aspects. The challenges that we used to call those of tomorrow, but which have become those of today, such as environment and economic competitiveness in a knowledge economy, are not going to be met except by policies that have, to borrow an expression from constitutional law, a “double aspect”.
Un parti centriste doit, de plus, et c’est peut-être là que nous avons surtout failli lors des années que notre parti a passées au pouvoir, donner une cohérence à l’ensemble des politiques et des idées qu’il a ainsi adoptées. Cela peut, certes, être plus difficile à faire pour nous que pour un parti qui adhère obstinément à une seule idée fixe, mais cela n’est pas impossible pour autant. Il suffit de montrer comment chaque mesure prise se rattache à nos valeurs de base telles que la justice sociale, le développement économique et l’unité canadienne et comment elle nous aidera à s’approcher de ces objectifs. Tant et aussi longtemps que ce travail est fait rigoureusement, nous ne serons pas obligés de nous limités à nous limiter à un nombre arbitraire et nécessairement trop réduit de « priorités » hétéroclites comme Stephen Harper le fait, sans pour autant être le parti désorienté que nous avons trop souvent été ces dernières années.
In short, the political centre is our party’s “home” and should remain it. Being a centrist party requires that we be rigorous and coherent, but allows us to implement policies that will actually improve people’s lives, without worrying about the way they can be characterized by those opposed to them because of some narrow ideological viewpoint. What policies will those be? That, I think, is one of the things the leadership race will have to determine, maybe the most important thing. Personally, I would very much like to see a commitment to universities – but as a university student I have to admit to a “certain” bias.
posted by Leonid at 22:03
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home