Pulling Another Chretien

I've said before that Gary Doer and Jean Chretien are remarkably similar politicians.

Today, Premier Doer once again mimicked le P'tit Gars de Shawinigan by effectively tying his successor's hands with new electoral rules that fix election dates, limit pre-writ advertising and give parties public financing.

It's a nice concept, but if it's such a great thing to do, why didn't Doer bring in these changes last year -- back when these changes might have made a difference in the provincial election? Instead, Doer has covered off every complaint made about his government's conduct in the lead-up to last May 22 and in the process, stripped several tools from the Office of the Premier's political toolkit.

Just as Chretien made life intentionally difficult for his rival and successor, Paul Martin, by restricting corporate donations to parties and leadership candidates, Doer seems to be keen on ensuring that no provincial party leader, NDP or otherwise, can replicate the Doer three-peat.

The next premier, unlike Doer, won't be able to stroll over to Government House an hour after a major federal funding announcement and drop the writ now that the next election date has been fixed.

The next premier, unlike Doer, won't be able to soften up the electorate with a self-serving spate of pre-election government advertising. Manitoba Won't Mean Business, nor will Manitobans be Seeing Green within 60 days of the next campaign.

The next premier, unlike Doer, won't benefit from having surrogates bombard the airwaves and billboards with third-party advertising not-so-subtly reminding voters how terrible the 1990s were (at least if you were a teacher or nurse).

The next premier, unlike Doer, will have to bury his political skeletons a little deeper, as the comissioner of elections will be able to shed light on his or her investigations into partisan chicanery. Good thing that Maples business was out of the way before that one went in the books.

It's all well and good to do. But it begs the question: is it all to be open and transparent, or is it just to make sure one man's remarkable political achievement remains intact?