Dear Editor:
Re: Pro-rep Pro-am, Sept. 15 Viewpoint.
Mr. Weaver’s choice of words, that campaign promises were “irrelevant,” is not really a poor choice of words, certainly not if we consider governance and democracy to be more than a form of power gift wrap. A political promise must be taken, or at least ought to be taken, by any citizen with a sense of reality, as a “subject to” promise.
There are two principles regarding “subject to” clauses: “subject to being in a political position to fulfill the promise” and “subject to external conditions permitting the promise to remain a first priority.” Take the example of the forest fire season we have experienced in B.C. this year. If a political party had promised a balance budget, and had gained a majority of the legislative seats in the election just as the fire season exploded, what then ought to take priority: the new reality or the promise of a balanced budget?
As for “jockeying,” a more appropriate term would be “negotiating” as would seem to be a responsible and appropriate action in a democracy where, presumably, the idea is for citizens who hold to different views to work out their differences in the pursuit of a compromise – which is a laudable goal in democratic politics – that being a solution with which admittedly nobody may be enthusiastically pleased, but one with which a broad section of the community may be willing to go along.
André Carrel
Terrace, B.C.
