One of the reasons academics get tenure is so they'll pursue their scholarly interests in a disinterested fashion, ie free from undue influence. No matter how quaint that idea might seem, in the market era you've gotta admit it's got staying power.
At any rate I was reminded of all this in reading Peter Russell's contribution to a new collection of essays on the prorogation contretemps (Parliamentary Democracy In Crisis, U of T Press). In it, the University of Toronto professor emeritus calls out Stephen Harper for “misleading” the Canadian public as to the nature of Canada's electoral democracy in light of last December's proposed coalition.
At the time, Harper suggested that Stéphane Dion couldn't be prime minister because he “does not have the right to take power without an election.” Enough has been said about this in the intervening months that I don't need to point out again the various and sundry ways in which Harper's assertion was - and is - piffle.
What strikes me now in light of Russell's essay is that Steve-O must have known it was hooey. And while complaining about politicians who lie is like complaining about speeders at the Indy 500, there are lies and then there are LIES. Russell points out that an Ipsos Reid poll taken in late 2008 indicated that 51 per cent of Canadians believe that the “Prime Minister of Canada is directly elected.” This “misunderstanding” is as a result of what's called a Big Lie. My guess is that Harper will get away with it. More's the pity.
