Letter to the Prime Minister

The Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa

07 January 2010

Dear Mr. Harper,

I am not anxious to win your favour, but I observe upon rereading Machiavelli’s The Prince that you have heeded his lessons in realpolitik. “Men must be either pampered or crushed” – pamper your party, crush the opposition, apparently regardless of cost.

Your mission, I now see, is not to reform Canada’s constitution, but to set a course for a new state, building it along republican lines, an inspiration (it can be argued) you share with Machiavelli. Is this why you snubbed the appointed Governor General while proroguing Parliament for the second time? And is this why you persist (and here I stand corrected) on forcing an elected Senate without the support of the provinces? This is quite some way to “recalibrate,” your favourite word of late. I doubt Machiavelli would have used the term, despite its apparent scientificity. It implies that the government is some sort of (military?) machine, and it gives away your unfortunate managerial tone.

Previously I have portrayed you in Cromwellian (and Orwellian) terms, but it should be noted that when England’s Charles I lost his head in 1649, thinkers turned to Machiavelli (if not The Prince, then his Discourses) to settle reasons of state, work which later inspired the Americans. An important Machiavellian quotation comes to mind here: “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many who are backed by the majesty of the state.” Yes, reasons of state – even in a minority Parliament - appear to prevail over embarrassing issues of torture of Afghan detainees. Machiavelli was tortured, too, in his time, but as we now know (post modern, post Geneva Convention) there is bad torture, and there is also acceptable torture, preferably among ‘others’, regardless of innocence.

Reasons of state prevailed during the infamous and scandalous Dreyfus Affair, now over a century old, when the unfortunate Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason and imprisoned on Devil’s Island. According to the far-Right at the time, he deserved punishment (even if he was not guilty) because the French Army could not be dishonoured. Similarly whistleblower Richard Colvin can be maligned by a Minister of the Crown for speaking the truth – only to be supported by well over a hundred other diplomat types, all truth-seekers for our nation.

Apparent reasons of state versus the sovereignty of Parliament, and you Mr. Harper have opted for the classical republican state, because you never much admired those Gothic arches in Ottawa, which incidentally never made their way into Machiavelli’s Italy – and into his own preoccupation with Roman history. Moreover, we are a nation committed to war (without much debate, if at all, mind you), and according to Machiavelli (I am sure you have heard this, Mr. Harper): “The first way to lose your state is to neglect the art of war; the first way to win a state is to be skilled in the art of war.”

But what kind of war are we fighting may I ask? It is certainly not a world-type war, thankfully. And how can we teach democracy by proroguing Parliament? More importantly, how can we bring democracy to Afghanistan when tribal culture expects that men marry their first cousins? What kind of society are we defending? Our men and women are sacrificing their lives to change a people by means of guns and weapons? Afghanistan is not “medieval” (as some on the ground commentators have observed): it belongs further in the Dark Ages, or earlier. No wonder Afghanistan foiled Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians before us.

In writing to you Mr. Harper (and here I borrow from Machiavelli) “I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined.” The first time you prorogued Parliament you brought about a constitutional crisis, pitching one part of Canada against another. The second time you prorogued Parliament you are doing the same. Your fundamental lack of respect for the democratic processes of Parliament is “dissimulated” (a favourite Machiavellian concept) by your efforts to change the Senate – completely, and without the support of the provinces.

Sometimes you like to think of yourself as a “lion” (in a sweater) and many other times you are wily – like a “fox”, but most of your activity involves trying to escape a bad reputation – about which Machiavelli warns. “Escape” is a key word because you do an awful lot of it, partly thanks to the general public now satiated by federal politics these days - and often because of a once reliable media. “For intellectual training” Machiavelli recommends that “the prince must read history” for that is something you cannot escape. But if you only confine yourself to Roman history, as does that other prince of tutors you have (let’s call him Tom), you will be reduced to a rather uninspired – yes, a morally low - picture of democracy (as there was none). The Roman political culture best featured ‘reason’, (international)‘law’, ‘government’ and an eventually despotic empire but no Athenian demos – the people. In its later stages the Romans probably learned something about freedom from the ancient German (Anglo-Saxon type) tribes, if you consider Tacitus.

I am afraid Mr. Prime Minister that history has escaped you. Both you and Machiavelli trash the proverb “he who builds on the people builds on mud” but in going from the issue of Afghan detainees to prorogation to another constitutional rumble in the space of a week you are no longer the “wise prince [who] should rely on what he controls.” I am afraid you have watched too many movies in your youth, and you represent, in my eyes, a kind of constitutional Rambo. “A shrewd prince should adopt a middle way” – and here you not only fail Machiavelli but notably what once was key to the Canadian identity.

Sincerely,

Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
cc www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com
cc joehueglin@bellnet.ca