The response to the essay I posted yesterday has been fascinating. From the comments on the Samara blog to those on Aaron Wherry's Beyond the Commons post and all places in between (well, just Twitter, really), I've read the reactions of supporters, detractors and those who've used my argument as a point of departure. I thank anyone who's jumped in for their contributions. This is an important issue that deserves thorough discussion.
In my original post, I worried, above all, that the census coverage was creeping toward an emphasis on internal political tactics and inter-party horse races, and, because of this, we risk missing an opportunity to widen the discussion. The example of India's census debate, which I outlined in my initial post, was meant to illuminate this point.
Some commentators correctly suggested that the Canadian census situation is a particularly reactive one. The government's decision was made with little to no public debate or consultation, and the facts behind how the decision was made have been difficult to pin down. In defending the media's coverage, Edmonton-based journalist Max Fawcett rightly points out that "the Harper government doesn’t appear interested in providing anyone with facts." This is one of the reasons our country's columnists speculate about the reasons for the Harper government's decision.
I do not dispute that speculation, especially by veteran voices, serves a valuable function. My point was not to malign the coverage in its entirety. Surely, the profusion of articles, columns, posts, radio reports, television interviews and panel discussions have helped bring a level of public awareness to the elimination of the mandatory long form census that it would not have otherwise achieved. There have been many examples of very solid work, like Kady O'Malley's 21st century shoe leather reporting, Tavia Grant's summary of the effects of the census changes and Jim Brown's July 14th interview with former chief statistician Ivan Fellegi. As recently as today, Bill Curry provided excellent historical context on how past cabinets have debated the census, and I mention others in my original post.
I should also point to Paul Wells' article, "Trivia", from which I quoted. He uses the juxtaposition of "the census debate matters" and "the census debate doesn't matter" as a way to describe how the Harper government has learned from watching the incrementalism of the Chretien Liberals. Changing the census, then, is an instance of pursuing a political end that would not play well in the electoral arena. Citing two important studies of Canadian politics, Wells' post provides important context for the underlying motivations of the Conservative government's decision.
Nevertheless, underlying this article is the currency of political tactics and the horse race between the parties. And it is this that is my concern. As C. Anthony Broh described it, "a horse is judged not by its absolute speed or skill but in comparison to the speed of other horses, and especially by its wins and losses." My concern is that election-style, horse race stories are being written about the census debate, using the issue as another way to compare the fortunes of Canada's eternal foes: the Conservatives and the Liberals.
And, of course, the role of parties in our federal politics is central, so we need journalists who keep track of the parties' machinations.
But my supposition is that making the census debate - the census being one of the most important tools for the creation of smart public policy - a function of the competition between the parties, a unique debate turns into a familiar story to most Canadians: a political crisis. We have also read about how the census issue only matters to the "chattering classes" and the Ottawa "beehive", and reports that claim "average Canadians" don't care about the census.
If census fatigue is the next phase of the development of this news narrative (and I'm not sure it is), could this be due to Canadians' familiarity with reading stories about where each party stands on an issue?
Nobody really knows, but I still believe we should use this opportunity to ask for a more engaged public discussion. And of course, the responsibility for this is not the job of the media alone (and some may say it's not the job of the media at all). In the example I pointed to in my original post, the debate over whether to include specific questions about caste in the Indian census was first a function of various political groups. Parties representing the OBC, or "Other Backward Castes," (who make up between 40 and 50 percent of the population) first agitated for census reform. The discussion was then taken up by politicians and civil servants across various levels on government in India.
Judging by the reaction from civil society organizations across Canada, we may be poised for such a debate after all.