Scanning public opinion tracking over the last two decades, there is no question that we have witnessed a wholesale loss of faith in traditional authority. While this tendency has laid victim the leaders of all institutions, from organized religion to labour to big business, nowhere has this two decades of defiance been more pronounced than in the sphere of politics.

In 1984, fully 58 per cent of Canadians expressed at least somewhat, if not very favourable, assessments of politicians. Today, more people believe Elvis is still alive than hold positive views of elected officials.

This trend, perhaps more than any other, has radically altered Canada's socio-political culture.

In fact, deference to authority combined with a pragmatic appreciation of the role of government in the economy, business sector and everyday life have been put forth as two of the most distinguishing hallmarks of the Canadian identity.

From our counter-revolutionary founding, to our law-lead settlement of the Canadian frontier, to some of our most fundamental institutions and policies that have distinguished our country in counterpoint to the United States (from medicare to the CBC) - these have all been attributed to or are seen to have grown out of these tendencies.

Moreover, the most distinguishable attributes of our political system - namely an indigenous democratic socialist movement and a Red Tory tradition - emphasize the primacy of the collective over the individual and have also been cited as manifestations of these same twin characters of Canadian culture.

And if you need any further evidence of the value Canadians have placed on stability or the faith we have vested in authority to maintain civil society, look no further than the fact that the single most popular initiative brought forward by government in modern times was not the enshrining of a charter of rights or the eradication of the deficit, but the implementation of the War Measures Act. In the short period of October to November, 1970, the Trudeau government saw its popular support soar from 39 to 58 per cent.

Loss of Faith in Authority

So, there is a strong case to be made that the loss of faith in authority actually has been more acute in Canada and, consequently, that this alteration of outlook has had a more profound effect on our attitudes and expectations of government than elsewhere.

This conclusion is not new and has been noted elsewhere. Less frequently asked however is the obvious question -"how did this come about?"

Basically, research suggests that this breakdown in trust has its root in a growing sense that tried and true solutions increasingly were not seen to be working in modern times. Canadians came to this conclusion not as a consequence of any shift in ideological outlook, but as a pragmatic response to the own experiences - namely, old solutions were being applied at the same time that the problems they were enduring either persisted or worsened.

Where this contradiction became most pronounced was in the clash between post-war values and pre-millennial experience.

The dominant ethos marking Canada in the post-war period could be described as "progress is normal". This manifested itself in a belief that the next car would be faster, the next house bigger and the next paycheque fatter. Accompanying values embraced by virtually all Canadians (regardless of socio-economic status) included -"if you work hard and put your mind to it, you can be anything you want, in Canada," "my children have the right to expect more than I did, while growing up," and "a good education is the key to success in the future." Basically, the prevailing view was that progress was both inevitable and immutable.

The very fact that these values were so universally held propelled us forward and bred a stable civil culture; for the accompanying conclusion was that all problems could be overcome - if not alone, then certainly as a collective and most certainly when assisted by government.

This engrained set of beliefs was challenged initially in the late 70s as inflation, for the first time, began to erode real income. At this point in time, Canadians were able to identify and articulate problems, but viewed them as aberrations and eminently solvable.

Conflict Between Values and Experience

The conflict between values and experience was heightened and exaggerated by the stagnation of the 80s when Canadians witnessed more activist governments, but still saw problems persisting and deepening. In the face of accumulating deficits and the ineffectiveness of government-sponsored solutions, Canadians increasingly came to conclude that their expectations for progress were going to have to be delayed.

Finally, in the 1990s, we witnessed the evolution of a cementing despair and a deadening sense that, for many, opportunities were actually diminishing in the face of mounting prosperity. Indeed, at the very point in time that we saw unprecedented numbers of Canadians describing the economy in positive terms, they were also identifying a growing perceived gap between haves and have-nots - that while prosperity was clearly available, it was not being shared equally by all segments of society.

This experience contradicted and challenged the dominant post-war ethos. It lead to the rejection of solutions which had been applied to mounting problems which were seen as barriers to inexorable progress, and increasingly seen as permanent. Eventually, these conclusions also altered the population's view of the architects of the status quo.

And so, in parallel, Canadians came to a cumulative set of conclusions about government, politicians and policies over the last two decades. With each step, the population came to view their leaders as successively more at odds with their own priorities and aspirations.

By the end of the 1970s, it was government's passivity that was linked to its inability to guarantee progress. Canadian's continued to believe that governments had the power and wherewithal to solve problems, but that they increasingly failed to share the public's priorities and therefore left problems unattended to grow even larger.

A decade later, governments were associated no longer with passively, but now were viewed as actively contributing to the population's failed expectations as a result of steadfastly clinging to solutions long after the public had rejected them as unworkable.

Government Seen as Perpetrators of Inequity

And by the turn of the century, governments came to be seen as the actual perpetrators of inequities and diminished opportunities, by pursuing an agenda and policies that emphasized the economy at the expense of the social safety net and, inevitably, benefited the few over the many.

As a result of the presence of escalating barriers to the attainment of progress and the attendant cascading decline in the perceived effectiveness of those who presided over shrinking opportunities, traditional authority figures, and politicians in particular, became part of the problem; and for many, became the entire problem itself. In the end, by the year 2000, governments and politicians had come perilously close to becoming irrelevant for haves and seen as antagonists by have-nots.

Why Should we Care

However, even if you accepts this analysis it still begs another set of inevitable questions-"why should we even care about this?" "who wants to return to the bad old days of excessive government intervention and decision-making by elite accommodation?" "are we not better off, more efficacious and self-reliant, less deluded, by coming to the realization that we misplaced our faith in authority and instead begin turning to a new found reliance on ourselves?"

Judged against the temper of our times, these are not merely rhetorical questions but the natural byproduct of the very loss of faith which we are discussing. If you have no faith in authority, their loss of relevance is really no loss at all.

Put in a broader context, however, the inescapable fact is that when politics and politicians become irrelevant or are seen as a negative force in society, we weaken the very foundations of democracy.

To maintain this does not mean placing democracy within the narrow definition of the term as simply the act of voting or merely choosing politicians to serve public office, but relates to the higher rationale of why we go through this exercise in the first place

American pastor and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr made this point best when he said - "man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary" .

When we put aside our fashionable cynicism, and take a step back and ask why we enter civil society, why we insist on the right of democratic franchise and why we place our trust in rules, order and politics, it becomes clear that the stakes in the game we are playing are much greater.

Stakes Much Greater

This caution - while seemingly too high-minded for modern sensibilities - is based on a number of premises.

First, the basic relationship between the individual and the state begins with the principal that in order to establish a framework where all have the ability to exercise certain rights, the citizen must give up some of his unbridled freedom. We do this out of the belief that collective stability is more valued than unbridled individual freedom. Indeed, we tacitly endorse this proposition every day, in our obedience to the laws which emanate from our political system. In nature, and outside of the constraints of civil society, we have the right to drive our cars at any speed and in any manner we chose. But we give up that right and brake at every stop sign - thereby inconveniencing the traveller and extending the time it takes to get to our destination - because we value our collective safety.

Second, we task delegates and through the democratic franchise entrust them to set a balance between freedom and order. This is a cornerstone of representative democracy and goes back to Burke's famous speech to the electors of Bristol. Offsetting this grant, however, we reserve the right to withdraw our delegated trust if there is evidence that it is being abused or that the balance we seek is being jeopardized. Indeed, our ability and willingness to withdraw this trust is as inherent a part of the democratic pact we strike, as is the granting of trust in the first place.

The reason for this check on the power of the state and our delegates is as fundamentally important to the preservation of freedoms as those we exchange for order - namely, in the same way that we have democracy to protect the rights of the few from the injustices of the many, so too we maintain the right to revolt because the capacity of the state to do evil is equal to its capacity to do good.

This is not judgmental, but an inherent feature of politics.

Central to the political process is the authoritative allocation of scarce resources. This gives the state the power to help those who cannot help themselves, but also to confiscate that which has been rightfully earned.

The political system also uniquely enjoys the only monopoly on the legitimate use of violence - the ability to serve and protect the safety of the majority from the lawlessness of the minority, but also to enslave, imprison and ultimately extinguish those who may be legitimately exercising their right to revolt within the rule of law.

And ultimately, under the Westminster system of democracy, Parliament is supreme. It can make men women.

The power we grant our elected officials, therefore, is a necessary cornerstone of civil society, and at one and the same time clearly far too dangerous, powerful and important to be left without vigil.

Consequently, in the course of the entire debate over cynicism towards the political process, we must ask equally not merely whether our leaders are honest-dishonest, capable-incapable and trustworthy-untrustworthy, but whether we can we afford to ignore or uncritically distance those who wield this power. Even more fundamentally, are we doing everything we can to ensure that those we elect are the most honest, capable and compassionate that society has to offer?

Vigilance Comes From the Press

And where does vigilance come from in the modern state? The press.

Now I know it has become equally fashionable to be cynical and negative about the press.

Recent research we are conducting on behalf of the Canadian Journalism Foundation has made this cynicism abundantly clear.

During a series of focus groups conducted across the country with voters, the bile directed towards the media was almost palpable. Allegations of excessive sensationalism, bias and superficiality were the norm and found voice in all segments of society and across all regions of the country.

Then we did an interesting thing. We injected an improbable and hypothetical proposition into the discussion. We asked -"what would your world be like if there were no media or news?"

The change in tone, temper and demeanour in the discussions was electric and immediate. Where moments earlier, respondents were raucously heaping untold amounts of abuse on the press, instantly the mood became very sombre and serious. And then the participants began to speak. To this question, they replied with statements like-"we would be isolated. There would be no common base of understanding across Canada." "I would feel vulnerable. How would I ever have been able to find out health hazards, like Walkerton?" "We wouldn't be free. It would be very easy for the powerful to run roughshod over the weak".

What became clear throughout his line of discussion was that beneath the surface cynicism, there was a deep and profound appreciation of the role of the media and its importance in arming the public with the tools they need to protect themselves. Even more fundamentally, the participants viewed the press as a cornerstone of their ability to function as citizens within society. Indeed, to the surprise of those of us observing, it became very apparent that these respondents actually had a deep and abiding understanding of the essential rationale of why we have a free press and were able to articulate these roles in almost Jeffersonian terms.

Canadians see Benefits of Free Press

In sum, Canadians identify four distinct roles and benefits that individuals and society share as a result of a free and functioning press. These are:

1) A utilitarian purpose - the press satisfies intellectual curiosity and provides knowledge that can be capitalized for practical purposes.

2) The watchdog function - journalists keep government and other powerful bodies in check and help "protect me in a dangerous world."

3) A community creator - news and current affairs reporting encourages empathy and builds a common ground on which to build communities.

4) The citizen function - the media helps one form opinions on important issues and provides the raw material for social interaction.

These are big responsibilities. They may not amount to a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, but these functions represent real power in their own right.

The corollary, of course, is that when misused or left unattended this power can also lead to a society that is ill-informed. It can leave the population open to the vulnerabilities of arbitrary authority, without any real sense of common cause or community, and missing the tools necessary to make meaningful decisions on matters that have a direct bearing on their full entitlement to citizenship participation.

With the benefit of this perspective, it also became clear for the first time, why these same people also held views about the press that were initially so negative.

Even if it was below the surface, the population seems to sense the innate importance of the media to their citizenship and, indeed, to democracy. They recognize that the press truly constitutes a fourth estate in society - that it is a central part of an interwoven fabric that makes up a civil, stable and free culture. More personally, they also acknowledge how paramount the press is to their full participation in the communities where they live and the values they represent.

That is all on the positive side of the ledger.

Because what these discussion groups made equally clear was that the participants also felt that the press - through their behaviour, editorial decisions and reportage - often hint that they do not hold their own profession in the same high esteem. More damningly, when the press fails to live up to these lofty standards, the population sees their defence as merely - "we are just giving our audiences what they want". In short, Canadians seem to understand that even if their instincts are base, their needs are not. Accordingly, they look to the press to rise above the lowest common denominator and perform a higher role.

While they may not have been able to articulate their feelings in precisely this way, you got the sense that our focus group participants would have been nodding their heads in eager agreement with Walter Lippman, if he was in the room and had chimed in with his famous quote - "No amount of charters, direct primaries or short ballots will make a democracy out of an illiterate people"

So where are we going with all this?

That the press deserve whatever public approbation they receive? That the media are to blame for the low regard in which our politicians and the political process are held?

No. Indeed, I hope I made it clear earlier in my remarks that the loss of faith in authority is deeply rooted in the very fabric of an altered Canadian political culture and is part of a larger societal trend that has been taking shape over the last two decades. I hope I also made it equally clear, however, that if we simply embrace cynicism as an acceptable and inevitable part of modern day society, then we face the prospect of paying an extreme price - and the stakes are nothing short of an informed and dynamic democracy.

Press Part of Solution

The point being made is that while it may be debatable as to how big a role the press has played in creating this problem, there is no question (in my mind at least) that it most certainly is part of the solution.

The extent to which the problem of cynicism towards authority has become endemic, became crystal clear in the 1993 election. In an otherwise uniformly unpleasant experience for me personally, one moment in particular stood out in a glare of insight.

In the early days of the campaign, then prime minister Kim Campbell offered her view that it was unlikely Canada would see any meaningful reduction in unemployment before the end of the decade. As a key Progressive Conservative adviser, I, and my colleagues, groaned in disgust. The statement was most definitely "off strategy". The opposition immediately saw an opening and took the offensive by labelling Campbell a doomsayer. The press pounced on her utterances, as the first major tactical error of the campaign. Focus groups we conducted that evening indicated that voters had serious doubts about Campbell's qualifications as a politician as a result of making such a prediction. All toll, and from all quarters, the conclusions were the same - a huge mistake had been made.

After the campaign, I had pause to think about many things but this instance kept coming back to me. My advisor friends and I believed what Campbell said, while "off strategy," was essentially true. The opposition and press, in candid off-the-record moments, conceded the same. Even the average voters whom we polled offered a belief that what Campbell was saying was probably accurate.

The question I then began to ask myself, was - "how could we have come to a point, in politics, where telling the truth is considered a mistake by all elements of society?"

To understand the role the press plays in this escalating cynicism, we can look no further than the evolution in how political reporting has changed in recent years.

Thirty years ago, analysis of television news revealed, on average, that 80 per cent of every broadcasted item was devoted to live, unadulterated coverage of the subject of the news. Today, that percentage has shrunk to 20 per cent, as the remainder is spent on editorial comment by journalists offering their views on what the subject of the news said. The difference, of course is that now we rarely hear, directly, what news makers are articulating and instead we hear the journalist's version of what happened.

A second major shift relates to the way journalists now define "objectivity". In the Trudeau era and before, members of the press gallery were well aware of the peccadilloes of politicians, but rarely reported them. They knew about drinking, womanizing, ethnic jokes or what have you, because journalist knew politicians. They drank with them, sat in their offices late into the night and had real insight into lawmakers, warts and all. Today, this type of familiarity is not only frowned upon but is also seen as an impediment to objectivity. The prevailing view is that to know politicians in this intimate way will, ipso facto, cloud journalistic judgment and prevent impartial coverage of these makers of the news.

Since Watergate, journalists now also believe that the most plum assignments available are not straight-ahead factual relating of what was said or what happened, but the more evolved discipline of investigative reporting. Unearthing facts not on the public record or tying personal character to public performance has become the highest-regarded form of journalism.

While none of these trends in isolation would indicate any cause for alarm, taken together they have produced a mindset and practice which invariably leads to the treatment of politicians as adversaries. Journalist now spend far more time commenting on public figures, whom they may see on a daily basis, but have never actually met. Politicians therefore have ceased to be people to the new breed of journalist, but have become mere news items wrapped in skin.

Modern Journalists not Lap Dogs

What has happened is that the press has often usurped - or at least served as a filter on - the traditional responsibility of elected leaders to communicate to the electorate. Moreover, the modern journalists see themselves as watchdogs - and not lap dogs - and consequently feel no compunction simply to transmit the leaders' message to its intended audience. Instead, the press chooses to offer its own editorial comment - and the comment which is most valued within the journalistic profession today focuses not so much on the content of the message, but what the message implies about character.

Content, public policy and excessive detail is considered "boring". Character, personality, motive and strategy are exciting. The justification for this may be that this is what the audience wants, but the fact remains that, within the profession, this reflects a major and real part of journalistic culture today.

If the press and journalists operated in a vacuum, this would not be cause for concern. But they do not. The press plays a fundamental role in shaping the public's understanding of current events and to the extent that press values are reflected in that coverage, they are mirrored back by the public.

It has been said that "nothing which is morally wrong can ever be politically right". Implicit in this notion is that the balance between morality and politics is self-correcting. Morality and politics may be out of balance temporarily, but over time it is impossible for the immoral to govern. Why? Because an informed and engaged population ultimately will rise up and throw out those who govern immorally. But think back to the Kim Campbell story. The combined cynicism of the press and public suggests, much more deeply, that we may well be at the point where being morally right - telling the unvarnished truth - has become politically wrong. If this is the case, it is not simply regrettable but is an extremely dangerous state of affairs which should galvanize all those who care about society and its most important agent - the political process.

L'affaire Grand-Mère

Far from galvanized, however, the assumption of inherent wrong-doing, corruption and breach of public trust seems to have become the accepted norm. For now we see that we are treading on the same ground today in the so-called l'affaire Grand-Mère.

On the surface, the press and opposition, once again, are simply performing their proper duty and role as public watchdogs by holding the prime minister accountable for his actions. However, it is one thing to be a watchdog, and quite another to be savaging the mailman as he goes about his legitimate business. It is the same beast. But one behaviour contributes to a safe and orderly world, while the other breeds chaos in the neighbourhood and harm to the innocent.

Look at the facts - rather than the sport - of the case against Jean Chrétien.

The PM has produced a bill of sale for liquid property which he disposed of before he took office. The price of this transaction was fixed but he was never paid. If we accept, at face value, that this purchase and sale agreement is a legal and legitimate document - (not an unreasonable assumption by any normal measure) - then we should conclude that Mr. Chrétien did not need to strong-arm the Business Development Bank of Canada to protect this investment. The price was established, the payment prescribed and he had full right to sue if the terms of his purchase agreement were not met.

These are the indisputable facts. If we take Jean Chrétien at his word, then that is the end of the issue. Not to take him at his word, however, is to suggest that something far more sinister lurks below the surface than has been proven publicly thus far.

The principal unanswered question consuming the press and Parliament now is why was Chrétien not paid and why did he not exercise his right to sue to receive payment?

One answer (that virtually no one is offering) may be that because of his office and the scrutiny that comes with that office, the PM of Canada had no stomach for messy litigation over a transaction that pre-dated his office. If this is true, then Chrétien's innocence is doubly reaffirmed. Not only was there no wrongdoing, but in holding public office the PM removed the courts as a practical means to seek redress and exercise rights that are otherwise available to all other citizens.

There is a far more troubling answer to the question of why the PM did not receive payment. And that has been already been alleged - in both the House and in the press - and this is that Chrétien had absolutely no intention of selling the shares; that he merely deposited them with a convenient friend; and that the only reason the question of money even came up was because, once discovered, the matter of payment became a necessary ruse to cover up the original nefarious reason for the transfer.

The Game we Play

This is exciting conjecture. It makes for animated debate in the House and pithy material for the press. It is the game we play.

But it is nothing more than pure conjecture.

No one - in the house or in the press - has produced one shard of evidence to support this allegation. Yet the allegation has been made, and it has been made without hue and cry from any quarter, other than from the accused, as if it was the most normal thing in the world - indeed a responsibility of the press, politicians and anyone else who wishes to throw in their two bits worth - to make stuff up about what might have happened, regardless of whether anyone knows if it happened or not.

This goes beyond the presumption of guilt. It is the fabrication of evidence, and it has been given every bit as much legitimacy - indeed, in most quarters, more legitimacy - than real evidence that has been offered in support of innocence.

These new allegations suggest that not only is the PM guilty of breaching conflict-of-interest guidelines, but that he was participating in an outright act of deceit and fraud. If this is true, then a scandal of major proportions is truly underfoot. But if it is not true, then politicians and the press have heinously besmirched the integrity of an honest man who has devoted the majority of his life to serving his country; who also just happens to hold the most important and powerful office in the land.

Understand, that I am not defending the prime minister's handling of this affair. Indeed, there is a case to be made that his very high-handedness in dealing with many of the allegations has contributed to the growing public support for the air to be cleared in this case.

The more telling point is that no one in any other profession is subject to this yardstick of conduct, and no other profession would allow this measure to be used to judge their integrity. Quite simply, there is no other profession for which this type of speculative allegation would ever be made in public.

Think about it. The so called "smoking gun" in this affair, at this point, is that the PM did not get paid. If you did not get paid for something you legally sold, would you feel guilty? I personally would feel like a victim!

If I never intended to get paid and doctored a phoney bill of sale, then I am a fraud and a crook and deserve to be thrown in jail. That is what is being suggested about Jean Chrétien, and nothing less.

If true, the implications are enormous. But in order to be true, it must have happened and in turn, if it happened, it must be proved to have happened. To suggest that the PM is a fraud and crook - whether in Parliament or in the press - without this proof is nothing short of irresponsible. It crowds out coverage of other affairs and it adds to the corrosive and deleterious forces which drive the leaders and the lead further apart.

Politicians also Culpable

Make no mistake, however. This is not a one-way street. Politicians themselves have become equally culpable in setting a standard of conduct that amounts to a spiral to the bottom.

If I was Burger King and I wanted to gain market share, the single most effective claim I could make was that McDonald's hamburgers were rife with botulism. McDonald's, in turn, could counter that Burger King's kitchens were infested with E-coli and this would erode their competitor's advantage quite quickly. While brutally effective, this would never happen. And it would never happen, because both McDonalds and Burger King know that to participate in this type of marketing eventually would destroy the category - that consumers would loose faith in the entire fast-food industry and, in time, would stop buying hamburgers altogether.

Yet, in politics this is happening all the time. Negative advertising, unsubstantiated allegations and character innuendo have not only become the norm in politics today, these tactics are now considered the most effective way of gaining political ground on your opponents.

This cannot continue, because if it does we run the risk of destroying the category of "politics." Once destroyed, we invite totally unaccountable forces to move into this vacuum and influence society without the countervailing force of representative democracy.

It has been said that the true art of politics is not simply to listen to those who speak, but to hear those who do not. With politics and politicians in disrepute, this will not happen. The strong, the organized and the vocal will make their mark on the system while the weak, unorganized and silent become invisible.

Risk of Driving Out the Best

Ultimately if, through our own cascading cynicism, we drive out the best - those who value their character the most; those who have accomplished the most and therefore have the most to lose - then, surely, we will attract those who agree that the process is inherently flawed and corrupt; and those who hope to benefit from its flaws and corruption as a consequence.

If there is a caution to my tale, it is simply this - we have too much at stake to let this happen. At the end of the day, remembering this one simple fact may be the first step in advancing the public good.