Click here to visit the mobile version of winnipegfreepress.com

Winnipeg Free Press > Opinion > The View from the West > Coalition crisis continues to reverberate

The View from the West

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Coalition crisis continues to reverberate

By: Frances Russell

28/10/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 23

The constitutional positions taken by the Conservatives during last fall's parliamentary showdown could plunge Canada into a serious constitutional crisis, one of Canada's leading political scientists warns.

Peter Russell, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, believes any one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's three key public statements last November would change Canada from a parliamentary democracy into a populist democracy.

During that climactic week, Harper said the opposition "does not have the right to take power without an election." Then he said all coalitions must first be presented to the electorate during an election campaign. Finally -- and in Russell's view, most troubling -- Harper claimed the Governor General cannot exercise the Crown's traditional reserve power to call on another party to form a government should an existing government fall on a vote of confidence and must instead automatically grant the prime minister dissolution and another election.

That final declaration "raises the most serious problems for Canada's parliamentary democracy," Russell said in Winnipeg Oct. 15. He was delivering the eighth Templeton Lecture sponsored by the University of Manitoba political studies department.

"Mr. Harper's view that only the electorate can effect a change in government across party lines would, in effect, take away Parliament's role in the formation of government."

Harper's populist version of parliamentary democracy means if a new government was defeated on its first throne speech, the Governor General would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament and send Canadians back to the polls immediately.

Canadians, already wearied from three federal elections within the last five years, could see more -- much more -- of the same, perhaps more frequently, into the forseeable future.

Canada, one of the world's oldest parliamentary democracies, "is fast becoming a basket case -- the banana republic of the parliamentary world," Russell continued.

He urged Canada to follow New Zealand's example.

Canada's parliamentarians, he said, should strike a parliamentary committee and seek all-party written agreement on the principles of responsible (to Parliament) government, the role of the Governor General and the calling of elections.

In contrast to the presidential/congressional model, where the president's mandate comes directly from the people, as does that of Congress, voters in parliamentary democracies do not elect either a government or a prime minister. They elect a popular house, "the peoples' house of parliament," Russell said. And the licence to govern rests in "commanding the confidence" of that house.

Canada's parliamentary dysfunction arises from three factors, Russell continued. Citizens are poorly educated about their parliamentary government while swamped daily with blanket media coverage of the U.S. separation of powers system. Politicians are hardly better informed. They all regard minority governments as "unfortunate and temporary interludes" between majorities.

Finally, Canadians and their politicians cling to a "first-past-the-post" electoral system that rewards regionalism and sectionalism in an already dangerously regionalized nation.

The system routinely elects "false" majority governments that command support from only a minority of Canadians.

Russell's statistics tell the tale. Canada has had 14 "majority" governments out of 27 elected since 1921. Only three were genuine, that is, chosen by over 50 per cent of Canadians. Even given first past the post's tendency to reward regional concentrations of political support, fully 13 of Canada's 27 federal governments since 1921 have had to depend on one or more opposition parties -- usually briefly -- to stay in office.

As a sign of Canada's crumbling national cohesion and identity, three of the latter have been elected within the last five years.

Perhaps the most unfortunate casualty of last fall's crisis was the very idea of coalition government itself, Russell said. And Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff shoulders equal blame with Harper. Ignatieff dropped the coalition "like a pair of smelly socks" after he became Liberal leader.

Canadian parliamentary democracy cannot afford this "smearing" of coalitions, Russell continued. "A country like ours in which no single political party is very popular and voter choice is divided among five or more parties is likely to produce parliaments in which no party has a majority. In minority parliaments, alliances between parties are essential to make Parliament functional."

Noting that the distance between the parties on most issues is not huge, Russell said combining with other parties does not mean "selling the soul of what a party stands for."

Rather, it enhances democracy, creating "policies that can be supported by parties representing a majority of the people," he continued. "And isn't that what democracies should be all about?"

Frances Russell is a Winnipeg author and political commentator.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 28, 2009 A12

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 4.2 out of 5 (5 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

23 Commentscomment icon

Gabby,

Re: part 2 of your most recent post, I apologize, I should have been clearer. When I said denial of the recession, I meant denial that the recession would hit Canada. I did not mean that during the political debate we were in a recession.

Every other party was indicating that the country was headed for a recession. They were asking the ruling party to provide a stimulus package to try to reduce the severity and length of the recession when it arrived. Potentially, they thought we could avoid the recession with government intervention. I guess when they were young, they learned a stitch in time saves nine.

Once the Conservatives actually decided to start spending the money, they directed it to areas where I think, quite frankly, were ridiculous. I am happy that the renovations that I did to my house will net me a larger refund next year. However, by the time I actually have that money, the recession will either be over or nearing its end in this country.

So yay, in years of plenty, I get plenty, in years of struggle, I get the shaft.

(For part 4)
That's why I find it funny that when political parties decide to work together, they are not praised for their efforts. Often, they get vilified.

The Conservatives got my vote after the 2004 coalition. The Liberals took my vote from them at the end of last year. I wonder who it will pass to next.

At this point I propose we agree to disagree. The thread will end soon, and so will our debate. This is my last post. TTFN

Gabby, (as this thread will soon disappear, I would first like to thank you for the debate. It has been fun, and for once, actually based on logic.)

(from Part 1)
"If the Conservatives managed to govern for 21/2 years with a smaller number of seats after the 2006 election, why should they have been denied the opportunity to govern in in 2008?"

The problem with this is that it assumes that the conservatives governed well for 2.5 years. There are many who would argue that they only governed as long as they did prior to the election because the then leader of the Liberals, Stephane Dion, was a weakling.

It's called a change in the status quo. The Liberals were being bullied in the previous parliament, and Dion just took it. Eventually, he snapped and decided to take a stand.

(from Part 4)"nor did he hand the Bloc veto power to help the coalition government survive."

Let me ask you this. In 2004, if the conservatives had taken power by working in coordination with the NDP and the Bloc (as was indicated by the letter you posted), what happens if the Bloc decides they don't like something? They vote it down. Without all three parties working together as one, nothing would have been passed. Therefore all three of them had Veto power. The difference is that this time, they were up front about it.

I do like how you criticize the Liberals for being willing to share power with the other parties. (appoint others party members to the senate.)

Finally, Part 4 (note to the moderators: the character limit is irksome for gabby people like me!)
5. • “they should be cooperating simply because it is the will of the people …”
On this point we agree.

Ideally, that’s the way it should work.

But realistically, all the parties vie to maintain their own numbers or better them. Survival of the fittest .…

Part 3
4. • “… the 2004 coalition between the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc.”
Here is what the three leaders of the opposition wrote in 2004, a letter widely circulated on the net:
“Excellency, 
 
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program. 

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. 
 
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.”

The 2004 situation was NOT a coalition. The opposition leaders proposed to work in concert to introduce measures intended to improve how Parliament works, and wrote the GG to ask her to consider all her options should Paul Martin decide to dissolve Parliament.

At no time did Stephen Harper promise the NDP a specified number of cabinet seats, nor did he suggest the leader of the Greens be appointed to the senate, nor did he hand the Bloc veto power to help the coalition government survive. That's what the 2008 formal coalition proposed, in contrast to the 2004 alliance or agreement.

Part 2
“The third was the government spending in a time of recession.(plus the denial of the recession) … “
Sorry, but your point is unclear. Are you saying the Conservatives were spending too much or not enough?

Regarding "denying the recession," please recall that all three leaders said the same thing during the campaign: they would not go into deficit. Once it became clear after the election that Canada might go into a deep recession, the Finance Minister decided to restrain spending (political party funding and limiting growth of equalization payments, for example).

Also note:
• Q3, Sept. 30, Canada was still at 0.3% growth
• Britain was about to enter recession only around Oct. 22, 2008.

And here: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/09/10/f-timeline-fall-2008-financial-meltdown.html
click on Canada to refresh your memory of the unfolding events. Notice that on Nov. 7, Canada's October employment figures were still holding steady.

So, I think it is inaccurate to say the government was "denying the recession" especially during the election campaign.

For Mhirnatsu (once again in a two-or-three-part reply due to character limits):
Part 1
1&2.
• “ "IF" the other three parties could work together …”
The fact remains a very short time had elapsed between the election and the formal coalition, so the Conservatives had not yet been given a chance to govern. If the Conservatives managed to govern for 21/2 years with a smaller number of seats after the 2006 election, why should they have been denied the opportunity to govern in in 2008?

• “… they would have represented a majority of voters … “
I know this is one of the favourite arguments advanced by supporters of the coalition. They’ve argued 62%+ did not vote for the Conservatives. However, if one applies that same logic to the other parties: 73.74% did not vote for the Liberals, 81.82% did not vote for the NDP, and 90.02% did not vote for the Bloc.

What about individual ridings? Well, in Toronto-Danforth 55% did NOT vote for Jack Layton, and in Etobicoke-Lakeshore 53. 9% did NOT vote for Michael Ignatieff. Would the other parties in those ridings be justified in removing those two MPs? I think not.

• “ stonewalling … the EI recommendations panel as an example … “
That depends on whose version one believes. Anyway, didn’t Jack Layton say he was willing to suspend voting against the government on the basis of the improvements proposed by the government? Are you saying Jack Layton agreed to be stonewalled?

TBC

1&2) You claim that the coalition would be usurping the will of the electorate. However, "IF" the other three parties could work together, and keep true to their individual mandates, they would have represented a majority of voters, and would thus have accurately represented the will of the people. If they couldn't the conservatives would have had their majority right now.

Personally, I would have preferred the Liberals and the Conservatives working together. But as I said earlier, every time the Liberals tried that, they worked together for a short time, and the Conservatives went back to stonewalling them. (See the EI recommendations panel as an example.)

3) Those weren't the only two offending items. The third was the government spending in a time of recession.(plus the denial of the recession) This item was not cleared up until the Budget in January, which is when the Liberals decided to end the coalition and work with the Conservatives.

4) Ummm... I wasn't referring to the 2005 alliance between the NDP and the Liberals. I was referring to the 2004 coalition between the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc. Signed and orchestrated by Steven Harper. (but it's ok when he does it, right?)

5) You seem to misunderstand my viewpoint here. I'm not disparaging the cooperation by parties. I encourage it. I'm saying that they should be cooperating simply because it is the will of the people, not because their job was on the line.

And here's the rest of my reply to Mhirnatsu:

4. There's a big difference between an alliance between the Liberals and the NDP on a budget (the Goodale/NDP 2005 budget) with the 2008 failed coalition that would have depended on the support of the separatist Bloc in order to survive. The same applies to the alliances occasionally formed between the Conservatives and the Bloc as the parties joined ranks on specific legislation. Cherries and grapes (just trying to avoid the outworn cliché).

5. You accuse the electorate of not knowing much about politics nor how our system works, yet you disparage the notion of alliances on a case-by-case basis - alliances which are to be expected in minority situations. You call it "cozying up." I call it cooperation and compromise.

Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten the 79+ times the Liberals sat on their hands, if one is to trust the NDP’s record keeping. The government brought forward legislation which the Liberals either voted for or abstained from simply to avoid going to the polls. Whose reasoning was not “admirable” again?

You’re welcome, and likewise, thank you. My reply will be in two parts, given the limited # of characters.
1. In other words, Jack Layton was right to usurp the decision made by the electorate, regardless of the outcome? And his plan B was a legitimate one?

2. No wonder you go on to say “the electorate is largely unaware of how the Canadain parlimentary [sic] process works.”
Canadians are indeed unaware that a legitimate election result could and should be overturned by such shameful behind-the-scenes plotting. Most Canadians trust that elections are above board, without cabals scheming in the background.

3. You seem to dismiss the fact the electorate decided the outcome; the electorate granted the Conservatives a bigger plurality; the electorate was and continues to be satisfied with the way the Conservatives have been governing.
The two “offending” items - discontinuing political party funding and temporarily suspending the public service’s right to strike - contained in the November 27, 2008 Fiscal and Economic Update, two measures which purportedly caused the coalition to form, were withdrawn immediately, yet the bloodless coup continued anyway.

Canadians throughout the land were rightly outraged.

#'s 4 and 5 to follow.

Gabby in QC, thank you for numbering your points, it is much easier to address.

1) It is perfectly normal for a politician not to tip their entire hand too early, just look at how long it took the governing party to relase a platform last election. No one talks about plan B in the open when they are still hoping plan A will work. It shows uncertainty.

2) Given the fact that the majority of the electorate is largely unaware of how the Canadain parlimentary process works, how is this a suprise, or even out of the ordinary?

3) The current governing party is almost the same as the one that preceeded the election. It was reasonable to assume that the party would govern simillarly to how it did pre-election. That assumption was then justified.

4) Refer to point 2. The electorate doesn't seem to know/care much about politics. Additionally, since a coalition was formed (but did not attain power) just 4 years prior, people should have know the possibility exists. The posibility of a coalition is always present in a minority government in our parlimentary system.

5) To say that the current government has made alliances between parties is a little misleading. The track record shows that every time that the threat of an election was present, they started negotiating with other parties. When they percieved that threat to be gone, they went back to self serving issues. So, technically, you are right that they cozied up to the other parties. However, the reasoning was not admirable

View all Comments

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Our Communities

Poll

Do you prefer tap or bottled water?

View Results

View Related Story