politics of language
Reading the Globe today, about the recent Conservative attacks (including some TV ads, apparently) on Stephane Dion & the Libs.
Michael Ignatieff, Dion’s deputy leader, says: “Instead of doing their job … they spend their time attacking the previous administration.”
Funny, we don’t ever refer to government as “administration” in Canada; but that’s the term they use in the US to refer to the President and his entourage. Ignatieff spent the past 20-odd years in the US, mostly at Harvard, which probably explains his usage; “Previous government” is what most people here would say.
The parliamentary system is very different from the US approach to government, and there’s an interesting reflection in the language. What’s the difference between referring to a “government” and an “administration”? Proposal: there is a direct connection between government and governed, an understanding that the “government” has a responsibility to the people. “Administration” seems at once more beurocratic, more distant, and more powerful. The Administration administers their policies in the best interest of the country; while the Government implements policy on behalf of the population.
I am not sure. We certainly have a very different relationship with our government here: there is not the sense of sacred awe for the PM’s office that is attached to the Presidency. Part of this has to do with the power of the posts, and the countries they represent: the US is the most powerful country in the world and we are little pipsqueaks. But still, there is cultural thing as well. I have always been baffled by the sense of almost religious devotion to the concept of the President in the US (the person becomes an abstract idea, and so floats above the common citizen). In Canada, we tend to think of our Prime Minster as that guy in Ottawa who’s got the job of running the country right now, and no more. Maybe this is the effect of the Parliamentary system, where the PM is forced to answer questions from Opposition MPs in Parliament all the time, often pretty aggressive questions, often televised on the news. Not so in the US.
So to Mr. Ignatieff: please use the word Government, and not Administration. I prefer to be governed than administered to.
Mr Ignatieff actually spent most of the last 25 years in the UK, as his wikipedia page attests, making his ‘administration’ line all the more confusing. Some people do it here in the UK as well, to my annoyance. I was surprised when I found out what he was doing in Canada: here was is known for his ubiquitous presence on arts programmes, and book review pages. Somehow always seeming to bring back everything he did or saw to his russian ancestry.
Comment by Chris Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 1:54 am
I’d venture that part of our lack of awe towards the prime minister is that they are more “the leader of the party we chose to run the country” than “the one single person we chose to run the country”. It has a big effect when, without any of the flashiness needed for a U.S. Impeachment, we can switch out a prime minister for a new one without even changing the rest of the constitution of the government. If anything the PM is “the person (let’s not forget Kim!) with the job of running the PARTY, thats all”
Good catch on the administration thing though. I’ve been enjoying that term since bush has been presenting an adversary that needed naming.
p.s. the global warming posts were great. I was on the edge of my seat, really. :)
Comment by jer — January 30, 2007 @ 10:46 am
good to know *someone’s* reading!
Comment by hugh — January 30, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
chris: in Canada his exile years are counted against him, usually reported as: “he spent the last 25 years out of canada, he is out of touch.” and extending that, time in the US is considered more damaging than time in the UK, since much of canadian politics, esp in the Bush years, has been about where we stand in contrast to US policies.
But he is sort of surprising as a politician, and tho he has his admirers, he is mistrusted by most, esp since he was one of the loudest small-L liberal vocies arguing in favour of the iraq war.
jer: good point about the party/president … there is no particular mandate given to a Prime Minsiter, only to his party.
Comment by hugh — January 31, 2007 @ 9:51 am
It’s presidents like Bush that make me wish we could easily swap ‘em out.
Interesting post on the government/administration terms. I think you have a point.
Comment by fling93 — February 1, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
yeah… here you could at any time have a vote of non-confidence that would bring down the government and force an election. in the US the timetable is set. so in the Canadian system, the PM could never implement a major policy that was opposed by the majority of MPs, since the govenment would fall on the vote in the House. whereas Bush seems keen on invading Iran whether or not Congress approves, and there seems to be no way to stop him, short of impeachment - which i suppose is a possibility if he really does try to invade iran without congressional support. though one presumes some sort of tonkin event would be necessary in order to make it happen. Heady times!
Comment by hugh — February 2, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Yeah, I do think that the flexibility of parliamentary systems is a big reason they are more prevalent than presidential systems. The U.S. nowadays is so powerful that it usually doesn’t need to act very quickly, but irresolvable disputes between the executive and the legislature usually result in military coups for most other presidential systems, like in Latin America.
But nobody here listens. They’re all brainwashed into rote recital of “checks and balances” and “don’t fix what ain’t broke” and stuff like that (you’d think the fact that Bush won TWO elections would be a huge sign that it’s broke).
Maybe I should move to Canada. :)
Comment by fling93 — February 2, 2007 @ 5:57 pm