July 22, 2019

Winnipeg
18° C, Clear

Full Forecast

Advertisement

Advertise With Us

Opinion

Harper finally gets his comeuppance

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 4/12/2008 (3881 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A few weeks ago, with the electoral wars over, Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated a willingness to abandon the confrontational approach that had been the hallmark of his first stint as prime minister. This seemed to be an acknowledgment of something quite basic: Since recourse to another early election was not an option, this Parliament needed to work, not least because of the impending financial crisis. Regrettably, Harper's conciliatory tone proved an aberration at best and, at worst and most likely, a sham and a crass political ploy. Neither in this nor any future Parliament is the opposition ever likely to trust him again.

Like Richard Nixon, Harper seems obsessed not merely with defeating his opponents, but with destroying them. The fact that he could not restrain himself, even in a minority position, bespeaks a kind of sickness better explained by pathology than politics. It is poetic justice that after Harper's repeatedly goading, taunting and humiliating his opponents, they finally sucked up their guts and kicked him in the privates.

In consequence, he has achieved the improbable: a coalition against him. If it endures, he faces the near certainty of being defeated in the House, the only question being one of timing. The fury of his current attacks, media blitz and wholesale distribution of various forms of propaganda can only inflame the situation further. Aided by conservative media, the Conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy that combines legitimate political concerns with all sorts of doomsday predictions calculated to appeal to the credulous and to many Canadians who have never had much reason to think about the workings of our parliamentary system.

There is obviously much confusion and misinformation out there about how parliamentary systems derived from the so-called "Westminster model" actually work. Unlike Americans who elect a president separate and apart from electing a Congress, we elect a House of Commons, the makeup of which determines which MP will be prime minister. Much of the time that is obvious: If one party has a majority, the leader of that party becomes prime minister. If no party has a majority, the Governor General would usually invite the leader of the largest party to become prime minister and form a government -- which could and would remain in office so long as it had the confidence of a majority of the members of the House. Even that, however, is not an iron-clad rule: in the election of 1925, the governing party not only lost its majority but emerged as the second-largest party in the House. The then prime minister exercised his right to meet Parliament, believing that the third party in the House would support his government and, for a time, it did.

Get the full story.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.

Join free for 30 days

After that, pay as little as $0.99 per month for the best local news coverage in Manitoba.

 

Already a subscriber?

Log in

Keep reading free:

Already have an account? Log in here »

Subscribers Log in below to continue reading,
not a subscriber? Create an account to start a 30 day free trial.

Log in Create your account

Your free trial has come to an end.

We hope you have enjoyed your trial! To continue reading, we recommend our Read Now Pay Later membership. Simply add a form of payment and pay only 27¢ per article.

For unlimited access to the best local, national, and international news and much more, try an All Access Digital subscription:

Thank you for supporting the journalism that our community needs!

Your free trial has come to an end.

We hope you have enjoyed your trial! To continue reading, we recommend our Read Now Pay Later membership. Simply add a form of payment and pay only 27¢ per article.

For unlimited access to the best local, national, and international news and much more, try an All Access Digital subscription:

Thank you for supporting the journalism that our community needs!

We hope you have enjoyed your free trial!

To continue reading, select a plan below:

All Access Digital

Introductory pricing*

99¢

per month

  • Unlimited online reading and commenting
  • Daily newspaper replica e-Edition
  • News Break - our award-winning iOS app
  • Exclusive perks & discounts
Continue

Read Now Pay Later

Pay

27¢

per article

  • Commitment-free
  • Cancel anytime
  • Only pay for what you read
  • Refunds available
Continue

*Introductory pricing schedule for 12 month: $0.99/month plus tax for first 3 months, $5.99/month for months 4 - 6, $10.99/month for months 7 - 9, $13.99/month for months 10 - 12. Standard All Access Digital rate of $16.99/month begins after first year.

We hope you have enjoyed your free trial!

To continue reading, select a plan below:

Read Now Pay Later

Pay

27¢

per article

  • Commitment-free
  • Cancel anytime
  • Only pay for what you read
  • Refunds available
Continue

All Access Digital

Introductory pricing*

99¢

per month

  • Unlimited online reading and commenting
  • Daily newspaper replica e-Edition
  • News Break - our award-winning iOS app
  • Exclusive perks & discounts
Continue

Mon to Sat Delivery

Pay

$34.36

per month

  • Includes all benefits of All Access Digital
  • 6-day delivery of our award-winning newspaper
Continue

*Introductory pricing schedule for 12 month: $0.99/month plus tax for first 3 months, $5.99/month for months 4 - 6, $10.99/month for months 7 - 9, $13.99/month for months 10 - 12. Standard All Access Digital rate of $16.99/month begins after first year.

We hope you have enjoyed your free trial!

To continue reading, select a plan below:

All Access Digital

Introductory pricing*

99¢

per month

  • Unlimited online reading and commenting
  • Daily newspaper replica e-Edition
  • News Break - our award-winning iOS app
  • Exclusive perks & discounts
Continue

Read Now Pay Later

Pay

27¢

per article

  • Commitment-free
  • Cancel anytime
  • Only pay for what you read
  • Refunds available
Continue

*Introductory pricing schedule for 12 month: $0.99/month plus tax for first 3 months, $5.99/month for months 4 - 6, $10.99/month for months 7 - 9, $13.99/month for months 10 - 12. Standard All Access Digital rate of $16.99/month begins after first year.

We hope you have enjoyed your free trial!

To continue reading, select a plan below:

Read Now Pay Later

Pay

27¢

per article

  • Commitment-free
  • Cancel anytime
  • Only pay for what you read
  • Refunds available
Continue

All Access Digital

Introductory pricing*

99¢

per month

  • Unlimited online reading and commenting
  • Daily newspaper replica e-Edition
  • News Break - our award-winning iOS app
  • Exclusive perks & discounts
Continue

*Introductory pricing schedule for 12 month: $0.99/month plus tax for first 3 months, $5.99/month for months 4 - 6, $10.99/month for months 7 - 9, $13.99/month for months 10 - 12. Standard All Access Digital rate of $16.99/month begins after first year.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 4/12/2008 (3881 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A few weeks ago, with the electoral wars over, Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated a willingness to abandon the confrontational approach that had been the hallmark of his first stint as prime minister. This seemed to be an acknowledgment of something quite basic: Since recourse to another early election was not an option, this Parliament needed to work, not least because of the impending financial crisis. Regrettably, Harper's conciliatory tone proved an aberration at best and, at worst and most likely, a sham and a crass political ploy. Neither in this nor any future Parliament is the opposition ever likely to trust him again.

Like Richard Nixon, Harper seems obsessed not merely with defeating his opponents, but with destroying them. The fact that he could not restrain himself, even in a minority position, bespeaks a kind of sickness better explained by pathology than politics. It is poetic justice that after Harper's repeatedly goading, taunting and humiliating his opponents, they finally sucked up their guts and kicked him in the privates.

In consequence, he has achieved the improbable: a coalition against him. If it endures, he faces the near certainty of being defeated in the House, the only question being one of timing. The fury of his current attacks, media blitz and wholesale distribution of various forms of propaganda can only inflame the situation further. Aided by conservative media, the Conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy that combines legitimate political concerns with all sorts of doomsday predictions calculated to appeal to the credulous and to many Canadians who have never had much reason to think about the workings of our parliamentary system.

There is obviously much confusion and misinformation out there about how parliamentary systems derived from the so-called "Westminster model" actually work. Unlike Americans who elect a president separate and apart from electing a Congress, we elect a House of Commons, the makeup of which determines which MP will be prime minister. Much of the time that is obvious: If one party has a majority, the leader of that party becomes prime minister. If no party has a majority, the Governor General would usually invite the leader of the largest party to become prime minister and form a government — which could and would remain in office so long as it had the confidence of a majority of the members of the House. Even that, however, is not an iron-clad rule: in the election of 1925, the governing party not only lost its majority but emerged as the second-largest party in the House. The then prime minister exercised his right to meet Parliament, believing that the third party in the House would support his government and, for a time, it did.

Therefore, though it is usually the case, there is no requirement that the prime minister be the leader of the largest party — or, indeed, a party leader at all: In 1940, when Winston Churchill became prime minister, he was not the leader of the Conservative party and did not become so until later. What all this means is that, in principle, any party can form a government if a majority of the House will support it; most of the time that doesn't happen for political reasons. There is no constitutional rule preventing it. The confidence of the House is the critical factor.

It follows from this that, under our system, a government can change without recourse to an election particularly if an election has recently been held — as in Canada in 1926, Ontario in 1985 — and Canada in 2004 if Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton had been successful. For it to occur in the present situation will depend on several considerations, one of which, unfortunately, is the unattractiveness of both Harper and Dion. If either leader were replaced by someone else in their respective parties, that party's appeal would undoubtedly increase immediately. More fundamentally, however, the question turns on whether Harper, losing a confidence vote in the House, is granted a dissolution.

Though Harper called the October election at his own convenience, the new Parliament does not exist merely for his convenience: It was elected by the people of Canada, whose collective decision was to deny him a majority.

Though Parliament is now prorogued, when it resumes in January, the Governor General still could not simply agree to a dissolution without first satisfying herself that no alternative government is possible without an election. Given the $300-million cost of an election held only seven weeks ago, and given the magnitude of a looming financial crisis, the Governor General would be justified — indeed, required — to canvass all options, including the one proposed by Dion and Layton, assuming it is still on the table. This is one of the few areas where the Governor General has real discretionary power — not to use it would be an abdication and reduce the office to a mere cipher. It would also mean that, hereafter, minority prime ministers would be free — as Eugene Forsey once said — to act as though the electors have simply got their arithmetic wrong and must be put through elections over and over again until they get it right.

 

wnwfp@mts.net

Advertisement

Advertise With Us

You can comment on most stories on The Winnipeg Free Press website. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or digital subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

Have Your Say

Comments are open to The Winnipeg Free Press print or digital subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to The Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

By submitting your comment, you agree to abide by our Community Standards and Moderation Policy. These guidelines were revised effective February 27, 2019. Have a question about our comment forum? Check our frequently asked questions.

Advertisement

Advertise With Us