It took an historic election to galvanize Americans to put aside their political cynicism and turn out in record numbers to vote in the November 4th election. Here in Canada, we wondered what it would take to ignite similar interests and public discourse in our political process. Well, we now have an answer.
In little more than one week, Canadians have transformed from political apathy to political activists. The impetuous, a power grab orchestrated between Jack Layton, leader of the leftist New Democratic party (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe, leader of the separatist, Bloc Quebecois party (Bloc) to oust the minority Conservative government. The combined 86 seats won by NDP (37) and Bloc (49) in our October 14th federal election fell substantially short of the 155 required to topple the minority Conservative government with its 143 seats. To overcome this minor but important hurdle they enlisted the support of Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal party for its 77 seats.
On Thursday, November 27th the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty tabled the Conservative government's fiscal update, both the leader of NDP and the leader of the Bloc immediately declared their intention to defeat the Harper government. The premise for their outrage, the economic update failed to properly address Canada's looming economic challenges. In reality, the leaders were pissed off that the Conservative government declared its intention to discontinue public subsidy for political parties. Of course, neither Layton, Duceppe nor Dion would publicly say this.
As Canadians began to slowly grasp the basis of this audacious political coup taking place in the nation's capital, the three leaders staged a signing ceremony to formalize the details of the coalition, on Monday afternoon. This was the beginning of the end for them. The image of Jack Layton gaining access to Canada's economic levers and Gilles Duceppe holding the balance of power crystallized for most Canadians exactly what was at stake and they didn't like it.
Unlike any other time in my life, Canadians of all political stripes became actively engaged in our political process. They are using every tool possible to voice their opinions. Rallies were held in most major cities across the country, Facebook sites popped-up, call-in radio and television shows are being deluged with callers. Broadcasters have seen their ratings jump as more and more Canadians are tuning in to evening political broadcast to learn of the latest developments. Overwhelmingly, Canadians made it clear that they oppose the proposed coalition's intent to wrestle power away from the Harper government. In fact, recent polls indicate that the majority of Canadians are opposed to the coalition.
Despite the very low voter turnout in our recent election, just 59% of eligible Canadians bothered to vote. Something tells me that neither Layton nor Duceppe expected such a political backlash from Canadians. Blinded by ambition and self-interest, the duo set in motion the undignified end of Stephane Dion's political career, ignited Canadians interest in politics and may have awaken the dormant national unity debate.
On Friday, December 5th Canada's Governor General, Michaelle Jean, granted Prime Minister Stephen Harper his request to prorogue Canada's parliament. This precedent setting move was the right decision. A politically energized and angry Canadian public breathed a collective sigh of relief.
While opposition party leaders try to hold their wobbly coalition together until parliament resumes on January 26, 2009, their members will deservedly face irate constituents when they return to their ridings.
Jack and Giles can be credited for unleashing the political passion of Canadians but they should pay the price at the polls for plunging Canada into a political crisis at a time when the nation is facing significant economic challenges. If an election were held today, Canadians would hand Stephen Harper a majority government. This, I am sure, was not what they had in mind.
Follow Megan Harris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/meganmharris
That they worked with the then-opposition Progressive Conservatives against their own party for a time and tried to merge with them only further shows the level of duplicity with which they acted. It was all a question of acquiring more power in part by trying to depose their elected leader and then 'uniting the Right' against the Liberal Party. Such was the dedication to honouring the will of their electorate and their inner-party democratic process.
(1) Democracies work through the institutions to which officials are elected. While Ms. Harris is correct that 59% of the electorate chose to vote, nonetheless, this is the only poll which counts -- 13 832 972. The rest CHOSE NOT to vote as was their right.
(2) If the popularity vote is to be the measure from that election, then Mr. Harper's support amongst voting Canadians is even worse than the percentage of MPs the Conservatives elected to Parliament -- 37.6% vs 46.4%, respectively -- and in both cases, a minority.
(3) Given that Parliamentary terms are five years, every budget or such is introduced by the governing party (or if it was a coalition, them) for debate in the House and then a vote. Mr. Harper certainly did not campaign on ending the right to strike nor eliminating public funding for political parties, yet those were two aspects of his budget for last Monday. The point here is that short of constant referenda, our system only accommodates debate in the House as the form of accountability to the Canadian electorate.
(4) If the Conservatives lose a no-confidence motion, then procedure permits the Governor General asking the CURRENT opposition partieS if they wish to govern. That they collectively comprise a majority of seats amongst the majority of the Canadian electorate gives them the right to govern DEMOCRATICALLY. They are our representatives as the people have spoken, including the Conservatives.
Like many Huff Po headlines " Power Grab Unleashes ... " is misleading. As a former Tory candidate you can put whatever spin you like - but Harper only got 38% of the vote for a good reason. Lots of people don't really like or trust him very much - and obviously don't like the other candidates much either. As to the power grab - prorouging thing. Canadians appear to be evenly split. They don't like "power grabs" - but they don't like idealogues that refuse to listen or co-operate either, and they don't like attempts to shut down parliament. Unfortunately Canada's passionate response to decades of political chicanery from all parties has been largely a gigantic yawn. Most of us have the economy and other stuff to worry about and not highly enamoured of any party or candidate alas we know better.
And let us not forget that back in 2004 Harper was ready to make a deal with seperatists and the socialists to bring down the Martin government. But then, I guess that does not qualify as a power grab when the Conservatives are behind it.
The Conservative Party of Canada, whose fundraising abilities - through their corporate masters - are superior to all other federal parties, would be least detrimentally affected by the move. Seeing this as an assault upon their very survival, yes, perhaps the oppostion parties acted out of "self-interest" and "ambition".
Any aspirations by parties other than the only two - Liberals and the Conservatives (formerly the Progressive Conservatives, for there is little if anything progressive about them now) - are usually purely ideologically driven. The Bloc Quebecois can never hope to govern Canada. Nor do they wish to, as their primary goal is and always has been Quebec sovereignty. The New Democratic party is not widly seen as pragmatic by the Canadian public. But this is quite untrue. In order to lend themslves to a society with increasing media concentration, and perhaps, increased public apathy
After a promise - and after rescheduling Opposion Days - to Canadians given in the House of Commons and (in the Parliamentary lobby) to allow the opposition parties to hold their non-confidence motion on December 8th, he treacherously withdraws it after demanding to Governor General Michaelle Jean, that she grant him a prorogation, presumably on the grounds that he wished to be allowed the time necessary to draw up a budget to combat the recession affecting Canada (and other countries around the world). This budget was forced upon him by the oppositon outrage to several measures proposed in his economic update.
Stephen Harper (our Cheney) chose in his first major address to parliament to completely ignore the impending economic crisis in favour of a vicious partisan power play that would do nothing to help suffering Canadians. If Americans could have gotten rid of Bush/Cheney I am sure they would have.
As to the federal Liberal's promise on the campaign trail to abstain from any understandings or coalitions with the New Democrats, I would never, and I hope Canadians would never, take the Liberals' promises at face value. It should not have been said and reinforces the reasonable assumption that the liberals do not keep their word, but are - to use a less derogatory term - pragmatic. Nonetheless, I deem it excusable. Of course, Harper's promise on income trusts turned out to be quite worthless and campaign slogan "Stand up for Canada" quite empty, once he had concluded the slavishly favourable to the American position, softtwood lumber "deal". It was a level of cowardice and subservience not seen since the North American "Free Trade" Agreement.
But Canadians, and Britons, vote for a party to represent their interests in Parliament. It just so happens that the perceptions of those parties are intricately linked,and dependent upon, [to} those of the leader. The party obtaining the single largest - NOT THE MOST - seats in a general election is asked by the Governor General - as she is the Queen's representative in Canada, though she is a Canadian citizen, as all have been since the 1960s - to form the government (owing to the perceived public preference for that party). The party in government only remains so
I am in no way a Harper supporter. I did not vote for him in the recent election, and I never have. I feel he and his Reform Party minions hijacked a once-great party (Progressive Conservatives) in a unite-the-right move to claim power away from the Liberals. And it (unfortunately) worked.
I have never voted anything but Liberal in a Federal Election, including the one just a few weeks ago.
With that said, I am vehemently opposed to this "coalition Government" that the NDP, Bloc and "Liberal Party" set in motion. We just spent $300,000,000 to hold an election to determine what the Canadian public felt with respect to its Federal leadership. That was a referendum on the leadership of both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion. While the Canadian people did not wholeheartedly back Harper, they handed Dion the worst defeat any Liberal leader has ever received...ever.
A backroom deal put together by a socialist, a separatist and an outgoing Liberal leader that annoints that very Liberal leader as Prime Minister is not democracy my friend.
I don't care what little loop-hole the coalition found buried somewhere in the Constitutional Law books. The Canadian people gave Stephen Harper a minority government...twice. I don't like that anymore than the next Liberal...but I'll take the voice of the Canadian people over the voice of 3 politicians any day.
I am in no way a Harper supporter. I did not vote for him in the recent election, and I never have. I feel he and his Reform Party minions hijacked a once-great party (Progressive Conservatives) in a unite-the-right move to claim power away from the Liberals. And it (unfortunately) worked.
I have never voted anything but Liberal in a Federal Election, including the one just a few weeks ago.
With that said, I am vehemently opposed to this "coalition Government" that the NDP, Bloc and "Liberal Party" set in motion. We just spent $300,000,000 to hold an election to determine what the Canadian public felt with respect to its Federal leadership. That was a referendum on the leadership of both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion. While the Canadian people did not wholeheartedly back Harper, they handed Dion the worst defeat any Liberal leader has ever received...ever.
A backroom deal put together by a socialist, a separatist and an outgoing Liberal leader that annoints that very Liberal leader as Prime Minister is not democracy my friend.
I don't care what little loop-hole the coalition found buried somewhere in the Constitutional Law books. The Canadian people gave Stephen Harper a minority government...twice. I don't like that anymore than the next Liberal...but I'll take the voice of the Canadian people over the voice of 3 politicians any day.
Mr. Harper was presenting his budget. The majority indicated that it would vote no, i.e. vote to remove him. He unsuccessfully tried option A, doesn't want option B since he is unlikely to win an outright majority, and refuses option C. Instead he asked the GG to prorouge Parliament against its wishes to give him time to either sway enough members to maintain control or prepare for an election. The key is that this is the first time the GG prorouged Parliament against its wishes. Last time this happened in the UK was in the 17th century and resulted in the English Civil War and the execution of the king who did it.
Parliaments are supposedly supreme but are coming under increasing attack by strong executives. The British House of Commons has been reduced to an obstreperous rubber stamp by gerry rigging and party "discipline". Mr. Harper seems to find this admirable.
The question is actually simple - is the Parliament supreme and the Prime Minister selected by the majority of Commons through either actual majority, tacit support, or coalition - or not.
I will say, though, that I am deeply disheartened with Mr. Ignatieff coming to the fore as he clearly seems not to support a formal, consensus coalition but rather parties coming behind Liberal MPs in votes in the House rather than observe the two formal agreements we have with the Coalition. Unless the Liberal Caucus can force him to continue Mr. Dion's work in good spirit with Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe, I fear that come the end of January 2009 we are going to see the Liberal MPs voting with the Conservatives because Mr. Ignatieff would rather not cooperate with the NDP and Bloc but rather have them back him. The Liberals can ill-afford financially another general election; the public likely would not support it. This is too much like Harper for me as with the closing of Parliament: the desire to use politics for personal ambition.