Since when did vetting candidates become too much trouble?
Since the emergence of ex-Conservative Party election candidates Jerry Bance and Tim Dutaud, much has been made over questions surrounding the administration’s ability to vet candidates.
Bance was exposed urinating in a homeowner’s coffee cup while supposedly on-the-job, and Dutaud, a Jerky-boy wannabe crank-caller with an odd taste for comedy, are just recent examples that shed light on the true lack of accountability in major-party politics.
Christie Blatchford of the National Post published a piece on Sept. 7 that stated: “Tories can’t be faulted for missing footage of candidates prank-calling and peeing in cups.”
Granted, anyone conducting a job search for potential hires can’t comb through every piece of data that exists in the ether, but that doesn’t mean what occurred is excusable.
When it comes to leading a political party — the governing party, no less — there is a higher degree of responsibility inherent, if only for the fact it is the governing party with resources a their disposal.
If the type of citizens Bance and Dutaud represent can be placed before the voting public as potential political leaders then something has gone awry in a crucial part of the political process.
What does it say as a leader if there’s no channel into the lower ranks? It would say they are out of touch, that their attention is too frayed and the system is just too complex to fully and comfortably manage.
Or perhaps dropping the writ nearly 80 days before the election was an inappropriate choice from the start.
Needless to say, a framework needs establishing and parties that wish to run candidates in each of the 338 electoral districts should be held, to some degree, accountable for those they put forth as leaders of communities across our nation.
It’s not enough to say the job is too difficult.
Even when time is not constrained, poor political leaders are selected for duty. The Senate spending scandal is yet another case study into this.
If there isn’t enough quality candidates with reputable sources to vouch for his or her’s ability, personality and mind set, then he or she should not be listed on the ballot until verification of one’s true ability to lead politically is understood.
Is this too idealistic a principle?
Perhaps, but if it were just one or two bad apples, this conversation would probably never appear. It’s that there’s a pattern of decision-making that occurs without regard to the taxpayer, the voting public.
Accountability doesn’t just mean taking action after the fact, it also means taking ownership over the fact something happened in lieu of a decision made.
The Conservative candidates were of course dropped once the videos were released, but, it begs wondering, how well does a political party really know the people they expect to represent our ridings?
If even the governing party doesn’t seem to care who is listed on a ballot, then something is fundamentally wrong with the current system as well.