The harder you work to control, the less control you have

In an election, you can understand why candidates want control over what gets discussed and how campaigns are run. But maintaining this kind of control too tightly is like squeezing a handful of mud — the tighter you squeeze, the more mud oozes out between your fingers.

Over the weekend, this adage was proven for both the Liberal and Conservative party leaders.

On Saturday, a Postmedia article correctly pointed out that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau had declared he wanted purely local nomination races for the right to run as Liberal candidates, in all ridings. But in reality, the opinion piece claims Trudeau and his advisors have intervened in a record number of nomination contests, in an attempt to ensure favoured candidates win the nominations.

The article — by a columnist well-known for his strong support of the Tories — claims that nomination dates were changed in some ridings to give advantage to selected candidates. It also says that in other ridings, potential candidates were disqualified from running, presumably against the will of voters in local riding associations.

That central offices of national parties interfere with local campaigns is nothing new. If I wanted to run as a Liberal here, for instance, the party — not any group that I could gather to take over a nomination meeting — would need to make sure I really was, in fact, a Liberal.

If I turned out not to be a true blue (or make that red) Liberal, I should not expect to be allowed to run under the Liberal banner. Or the banner of any party whose leader and platform I could not be proven to support.

That's our system, no matter what Trudeau might have claimed regarding non-interference in local nomination races. Whatever such declarations, all parties will interfere with nomination races in selected ridings.

Does that make Trudeau less trustworthy than the other leaders? Depends on how you spin it. In this election, it's safe to suspect that there quite a few control freaks working in the central offices of all the political parties.

But the more you attempt to control things (especially things like information flow) the more things seem to leak out.

Over the weekend, CBC reported that a federal wildlife officer, Tony Turner, was put on leave (with pay) pending an investigation into whether he as a civil servant crossed an ethical line by writing and performing a protest song about prime minister Stephen Harper.

He and his church music group posted on Youtube a five-minute old-style folk song called Harperman. I found it amusing, but then, I would.

The song actually won a songwriting contest, and will be performed in a national sing-along on Sept. 17 (with or without Turner being present).

The question raised is about the expectation of civil servants to be non-partisan, especially considering the atmosphere of suspicion the Harper team has created in its relationship with the civil service.

The courts have already ruled that taking a job as a wildlife officer does not cancel that part of Canadian citizenship which allows one to participate in democracy. Civil servants are allowed to run for office (by taking a leave), or to door-knock, put up signs and all the rest for someone else, during a campaign. Just don't use taxpayers money or resources to do it. That right is reserved for the parties themselves under the new laws governing federal elections.

Just the same, civil servants must do their work in a non-partisan manner. All totally reasonable.

But writing a protest song about a control-freak prime minister? Does that really cross a line? If so, who gets to draw the line?

Here's a point that was raised in discussion around this issue. The Prime Minister's Office staff is highly paid — by tax dollars. Employed by and beholden to taxpayers, yet they are the most hyper-partisan group in the nation.

It's a perfect given that we expect the PMO to lie, prevaricate, manipulate, misdirect and spin wildly on the party leader's behalf, and not on ours. Right now, former and current PMO staff are involved in a case of direct bribery of a certain senator.

But a guy who researches the flight routes of migratory birds can't sing: “Harperman, it's time for you to go”?

Business as usual — and a perfect example of why so many voters have simply given up on voting. Free speech denied to one means it will exist for none. Is this right not worth defending? 

To me, it merely shows that the more pressure you put on highly educated and dedicated people, telling them that you can't speak, can't act, can't do what you think is right, the more these things are going to happen.

The more you try to put a chill on things, the more likely it becomes that someone will eventually light a fire. And the more credibility that will be given to people when they do it.

It's a good outcome when party leaders discover they can't control everything. It makes them more likely to seek consensus, rather than dictating everything.

We all know that leaders need to be in control, or they have no authority. I prefer that authority should flow more from the power of consensus, than the force of office.