Brendan Steven, reporting for theHub, comments that on its most fractious and divided days, the Conservative Party seems more united by a shared rejection of the Liberal Party than any other core principle. One of the dangers of being the opposition is to always be seen as opposing.
Steven offers the techniques of Pope Francis as a useful example from whom the Conservative might take some lessons.
Catholics love “both/and” truths—seemingly contradictory concepts that are co-relational complements. In this spirit, opposition is bereft without proposition. Pope Francis finds much to condemn in the world these days, often deriding what he calls throwaway culture—an attitude that everything is disposable, from material goods to human life. But his criticism is married to vision. He offers concrete alternatives reflecting his own proposal. He refuses to disconnect the environmental crisis from the human crisis. He welcomes refugees, encourages economic development—saying that we must “prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone”—all while advancing the goal of ecological sustainability.1
Back in the 80’s I participated as an instructor in a program, the Christopher Leadership Course, to build confidence and community through the practice of effective public speaking. The evaluation of the efforts of the learning community was based on a model of Praise, Evaluation, and Praise. Every effort to practice public speaking received an evaluation that first recognized progress in the development of the speaker’s ability, second, it pointed out one aspect for the speaker to work on to improve speaking skill, and third concluded with another affirmation of the speaker’s presentation. Can you imagine politicians, in the House of Commons, using such a format during Question Period? Maybe a small change would involve the opposition party's “critic” being renamed as the opposition “alternative advisor” or “amendment advisor”. This might encourage the seemingly forgotten role of “critique” to propose positive actions rather than only cite the negative aspects of the proposals at hand??
References
