In another sad plea for vindication, Brain Mulroney spoke to friends and supporters this past week at a gala dedicated to remembering his election as Prime Minister,  promising to suffer bravely the self inflicted wounds resulting from his associating with various disreputable pay-off artists and lobbyists during and after serving as Prime Minister, and in so doing drawing upon a quote from an old Scottish (some claim English) ballad.

Apparently he still believes that he will return to the larger political arena in some capacity, having promised the party faithful and acolytes that he will “rise and fight again”.  Let’s hope that this was just a moment of romantic Irish blarney and that he actually plans to drop any notions about pursuing public vindication any further.  The very best thing for him and the country is that he exit from the public stage for good.  At the very least he is as sleazy and dishonest a Prime Minister as this country has known for a very long time.  His continuing presence on the political scene sets a very bad example for those interested in politics including – say – the country’s innocent youth, whom the Conservatives claim to be very worried about in terms of bad influences.  The celebration of his glorious leadership also runs counter to the Conservative’s claimed emphasis on honesty and integrity.

Of special interest is that in its reports the media ate it up.  They especially loved the fact that in quoting from this lovely and romantic old ballad, he used the exact quote used by John Diefenbaker when he was successfully challenged for the Conservative Party leadership in 1967.  Many wondered whether Mulroney even knew of Diefenbakers use (who cares) of the quotation, others assumed that he did and used it deliberately and some of those wondered what exact parallels he was suggesting about his future and that of Diefenbaker after being humiliated by his own party.

A fascinating question is whether any of the Conservative stalwarts who applauded so vigorously know anything the of the original use of this quotation in Canadian politics by one of our true Canadian political heroes.  It appears not from reading and listening to most reports.  If not, one wonders about both the political literacy and the fact checking skills of speechwriters and activists within the Conservative Party.

One need only search the CBC archives for the only apparent reference to the use of the phrase in Canadian politics at the time of its actual use:

“Four years after a stunning majority win, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker returns to the polls to seek a second mandate from Canadians. His Liberal opponent once more is Lester Pearson, but the 1962 campaign sees a new player on the federal stage: the New Democratic Party, led by former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas.

When it all shakes out, Diefenbaker is humbled by the narrow margin of victory for his Progressive Conservatives. Douglas, who failed to win his seat, is unbowed by the result. In this election-night recap, he (Douglas) quotes an English ballad: “I will lay me down and bleed a while, and then I’ll rise and fight again.”

The tape can be watched at CBC archives ( Broadcast date: Sept. 16, 1962; accessed at http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/clips/15689/. )

As a matter of historical interest the ballad is dedicated to the Scottish Admiral Sir Andrew Barton. And Douglas referred to it as a Scottish not English ballad (sorry CBC). The exact lines are as follows:

I am hurt but I am not slain.
I’ll lay me down and bleed awhile,
Then I’ll rise and fight again.’

True to his reputation Douglas quoted it verbatim.  His extemporaneous use of it in conceding his unexpected and to most observers shocking defeat in standing for Parliament after stepping down as Saskatchewan Premier was an electric moment.  It confirmed Douglas as the most eloquent and poetic political leader in Canadian history.  The quote that night appeared neither maudlin nor self serving.  No one doubted that it was a spontaneous, authentic, eloquent expression of what he felt in his heart at that painful moment.  Supporters and opponents alike were reduced to tears – many old scarred veterans of political wars.

Perhaps best of all, Douglas did rise and fight again, as the leader of the New Democratic Party in Parliament, as the champion of national public health care following his lead in Saskatchewan, and as a lone and deeply courageous parliamentary opponent of the suspension of rights and freedoms under the War Measures Act, among other things.  Not for him the endless maudlin pleas of Mulroney and Diefenbaker to be seen as victims, misunderstood and abused.

Knowing this history is no doubt a small thing in the larger scheme of things.  However it would be gratifying to see at least some of the media provide a historically accurate account of the use and abuse of this evocative ballad by Canadian politicians.  Its use by Mulroney and attribution to Diefenbaker sullies its powerful evocation of the pain of defeat and the resolve to go forward, after a brief respite, with courage and determination.  Neither have ever come close to doing it justice in their lives lived. Tommy other hand, spoke from the heart.  It uniquely and authentically was his voice and spoke to his life.

It is just one reminder of why Tommy Douglas was voted by CBC listeners as the greatest Canadian ever.  And why he will be remembered for his grit, determination, and eloquence.  As well as for his incredible accomplishments.

With Harper’s quick visit to Washington this week over, some wonder what the trip was really all about.  No big agreements were announced and most of the media commentary has found little of substance in what occurred.  Its significance should not be ignored however if only because it is one of a continuing and somewhat unexpected series of frequent face to face meetings between the Prime Minister and the President.  This pattern indicates if nothing else a strong commitment to the Canadian – US relationship on the part of both leaders and of a desire to deepen and personalize that relationship.

Any Canadian Prime Minister would in most circumstances be thankful for any opportunity  to meet with the US President.  Certainly this Prime Minister has shown that he is, with good reason.  The Prime Minister’s remarkable improvement in popular appeal since the fiasco last fall with the so-called economic statement is as much as anything the result of the successful cultivation and development of the US – Canada relationship.

It is not just meetings that have helped the Prime Minister’s optics.  Obama has given Harper a script and a program that is popular and a vast improvement over what he had previously.  Harper has followed the script, adopting a US agenda that gives his government the look of competence and purpose in keeping with the hopes of the majority of Canadians.  Harper lacked both of these last fall – the recession left him looking confused and dazed and Canadians shared a widespread fear that he would fail to deal with it and other pressing issues because he could not maneuver far outside his mean spirited hidden agenda.  All of that has changed.

The stimulus measures in Canada are modeled closely on those of the United States and both leaders proudly proclaim that they are complementary.  The small hiccup that arose with many state governments requiring that contracts go to state and US firms has been deftly handled, with Obama blaming states beyond his control all the while promising to block any drift toward federal protectionism.  Meanwhile Obama has encouraged Harper to keep up his high profile objections to the state restrictions while arguing convincingly that the overall impact is not large.  With the so far successful reconfiguration of the auto industry and easy credit and low interest rates giving a boost to housing and stock markets – both measures for which the US set the direction and Canada followed – there is optimism in both countries that the recession is over and the recovery underway.  Obama led the way, Harper followed, and Harper looks good.

Many Canadian observers are nevertheless critical of Harper on the environment and on measures to address global warming and for the very reason that he seems to want only to follow the US lead.  Various prominent academics claim he has no real plan that will move Canada forward independently of the United States.  They claim that this leaves Canada vulnerable to its interests losing out when the US does act.  However it is by no means clear that this is bad for Harper or for Canada.  Most Canadians seem satisfied that if Harper adopts carbon policies that parallel those of the US, Canada’s interest will be better served than would be the case with quixotic attempts to get out in front such as is the case with British Columbia’s ineffective transportation fuels carbon tax.   And indeed it is hard to see how there can be any effective attack on carbon emissions unless through coordinated multi-nation policies.  The sheer size of the US economy suggests that being a policy follower is wise in this case.  This was ignored by many Canadian academics who jumped on the carbon tax band wagon last year, even though all international experts agree that such isolated efforts are pointless.  And most Canadians remember Harper’s earlier dodges on global warming and so are happy having him following the US on this issue.  It feels much safer and more likely to be real.

Even Afghanistan, which looked like a possible source of conflict with the US with Canada committed to pulling out its troops in 2011, is being handled well and in a way that makes Harper look good.  This is one area where Obama truly values Canada’s views and experience, with the result that Canada is virtually for the first time ever among the few nations that the US consults and listens to about its number one foreign policy problem.  While some had expected that Canada’s withdrawal of troops would be a matter of potential conflict, Obama went out of this way after the meeting to praise Canada and to welcome a different but substantial role for Canada in Afghanistan post 2011.  In fact, to the surprise of most experts, he did not even press Harper to reconsider Canada’s planned troop withdrawal.

It is hard to remember a time when the relationship between a US President and a Canadian Prime Minister was so good and so highly valued by each.  True this is somewhat surprising given Harper’s ideological conservatism and his long time opposition to virtually all of the policy directions that he now so warmly embraces in common with Obama.  But it is working for him politically as he tracks slowly toward majority government territory in the polls.  And it works for Canadians.  Regardless of continuing fears about Harpers real intentions, most Canadians feel they are getting policies that work for Canada.  The vast majority of Canadians worry not at all that the origins and inspiration for these policies are a left leaning US President who seemed such an unlikely roll model for the conservative Harper only one year ago.   For most that is a comfort and most are prepared to give Harper credit for following what he calls the best friend and neighbour a country could possibly have.

Final results now in show Hamed Karzai with 3,093, 256 votes (54.6%); Dr. Abdullah Abdullah with 1,571,181 votes (27.8%) and Ramazan  Bashardost with 520,627 votes (9.2%)

The results push President Karzai past the 50% threshold needed to avoid a run-off with rival Abdullah Abdullah.

But the results have been thrown into doubt by the UN-backed election complaints commission ordering a number of recounts and audits of votes. And discordant voices are growing about the legitimacy of the election and the western backed election monitoring process is threatened by questions and internal dissent about whether the election results are acceptable.

With Karzai going over 50% there is consternation in most quarters, including the international community with an interest in the country.  Karzai has only lukewarm support of the United States and the western nations, (indeed serious doubts about him are widely held, including by Obama, and the US quietly offered support to Galani, a fomer Finance Minister, who is running a distant fourth). But his well oiled campaign has left no stone unturned to ensure that he is once again elected. Distasteful deals, a feature of his governing style, have been made with tribal leaders, warlords and other powerful groups. Money flows freely to cement relationships founded on networks of corruption and patronage. The fact that Karzai has largely failed to establish an effective, working government is largely irrelevant as power brokers bet their money on Karzai in a desperate effort to avoid a collapse of the Karzai client state.

Even with these final results, the outcome is far from certain. Karzai’s acceptability is proving to be less than a sure thing. He is facing a real continuing challenge, particularly from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, a telegenic and experienced candidate with a long history in the internecine battles to control the country.  The campaign for Galani never made much impact and he is coming in a very poor fourth.

To be able to be accepted as the legitimate winner, Karzai needed or will need three things.  The turnout had to be sufficiently high to make the result credible. The Taliban tried their best to scare people, solely to drive down the turnout. They had some success, driving down turnout significantly in some provinces, but the turnout looks to be quite high.  The United Nations reported that just over 91 percent of the estimated voters in Afghanistan  registered to vote as of 29 July when voter registration figures reached 8,659,772. Of that total 5,107,230 (59 percent) of registrants are men and 3,552,542 (41 percent) are women.  Close to 6 million voted, resulting in a turnout of 69%, which is quite high.  Not much is being made of this by western observers presumably because so many of them now have turn outs of their own of less than 50% in elections.   But it certainly meets the test for an acceptable turnout.  Second, he will need to have the international community declare the election itself to be legitimate. This is far from certain giving his record of corruption and electoral manipulation. There are serious reservations among international observers, but the usual test of free and fair elections will not be the standard here. While Karzai’s campaign has clearly practiced widespread fraud, the observers’ attention is directed mostly at evidence of widespread fraud in the voting itself. Despite lot’s of evidence of this, it is likely that the green light is going to be given, but with serious reservations.  It is hard to predict what this will mean.  Third, he needs a convincing margin of victory without it being so large as to not be believable. Anything else re-enforces  a conviction that his frauds have gone too far to ignore.

It might have been better for Karzai if he had received over 40% but less than 50% of the vote,which would be consistent with pre-election polls.  This would force a run0ff between him and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah.  However even that result would be questionable because of the Karzai corruption.  And as we can see Karzai was not able to bring himself to manage the result with that degree of sophistication.

So as much as Karzai wanted over 50% and a clear first round decision, in many ways he would have been better off with a run-off.  Now Dr. Abdullah will vigorously challenge the legitimacy of the outcome .  The possibility of Iran style protests makes many  western nations very nervous.  It is not clear Karzai can withstand such a challenge.  And Karzai is not without Iranian connections.  On Friday of last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — accused by thousands of Iranians back in June of stealing Iran’s own disputed election —congratulated Afghan president Hamid Karzai on being re-elected.

Many westerners will remember Dr. Abdullah Abdullah as the public face of the country in the period following the fall of the Taliban, when he was the international spokesperson and Foreign Minister. Before that he was Foreign Minister in the pre-Taliban government dominated by Ahmad Shah Massoud, now best known as leader of the Northern Alliance, which claimed to be the legitimate government of Afghanistan during the Taliban period. Massoud was killed by Taliban agents in his northern hide-out on September 13, 2001. Massoud was Defense Minister for a time before the Taliban took over. His army fought the destructive battle for Kabul with the competing war lord, then Prime Minister and known Taliban sympathizer and collaborator Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. This senseless fight was responsible for reducing Kabul to the ruble it is today. In the end neither won – the Taliban moved in and were welcomed by a completely demoralized city.

Abdullah was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs of the post-Taliban Interim Administration in December 2001, and after the Loya jirga in 2002, became Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Transition Administration that governed until the elections of 2004, when Karzai was elected. He continued for a time as Foreign Minister, but not being a warlord with control over an army and a tribal region, he was seen by Karzai as being of little value. Most of the remainder of the Northern Alliance leaders, including the warlards, became members of parliament, forming the “official opposition” to Karzai and further isolating Abdullah.

This time Abdullah is the nominee of the United National Front, which is essentially the the old Northern Alliance. But with one big difference. The powerful war lords – Dostum and Fahim in particular – have gone over to Karzai. However it does include Rabanni, a powerful political leader of the Northern Alliance and President of Afghanistan during the notorious pre-Taliban period when Hekmatyar was Prime Minister and Massoud was Defense Minister, and Kabul was bombarded by the competing forces of Hekmatyar and Massound,

Abdullah left the government in 2006. He now is a strong critic of the Karzai’s leadership. Turning down a chance to become Mr. Karzai’s running mate this year, he attacks him for polarizing the country, making deals with warlords and engaging in massive corruption.

He is positioning himself as leader of a younger generation of Afghans fed up with warlords, mujahedeen leaders clinging to the past and corruption. He represents the first serious challenge to a power system that has existed since the fall of the Soviets, aside from the Taliban during their disastrous backward looking adventure in government.

This is not the first time that Abdullah has looked to be a promising option for Afghanistan. He speaks the language of educated westerners, and was touted by the western media back in the early part of the decade as a coming force. However he had no real power base, the position of warlord and leader of the Northern Alliance having been shared out among Abdul Rashid Dostum, Yunus Qanuni, and Qasim Fahim. He is also a Tajik. Many believe that Afghanistan’s president has to come from the Pashtun ethnic group.

But the President is chosen by direct election. His message is appealing to those who see little good coming from the Karzai government. The Northern Alliance, minus the main warlords, is supporting him. Many voters want change.  There is also the possibility that the west will force a second run off election to prove its legitimacy.  Or that a new election will be forced upon Karzai.  Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy, met with Karzai a few days ago and tried to convince him to voluntarily submit to a runoff.  The meeting was handled badly and Karzai used it to rally support against US bullying.

However, there is a real chance that there will be another vote regardless.  This vote has been so corrupted as to make it unacceptable whatever the result.  There needs to be a re-run.  If there is, if Karzai runs it will be a two way race between Karzai and Abdullah.  If voter fraud is brought under reasonable control, anything is possible.  It is clear however that Karzai has destroyed has own legitimacy.  Anyone who hopes that the nation can be restored to a viable entity must hope that Karzai sees he has no future and decides to disappear into the sunset.  Then another election could be held free of his taint and perhaps capable of delivering a legitimate and credible leader.  That would almost certainly be Dr. Abdullah.  That would be for the best.  His campaign as relatively speaking free of corruption, he was not the annointed candidate of the US, and he has campaigned on a new start on reconstruction and development.  His Northern Alliance roots cause some anxiety, but he has shown he can operate independently of the war lords from there and draw on a broader popular base from across the country.