Political Debate

This morning my mother sent me the following forwarded email. 

Subject: Canadians 4 Democracy
Send this to as many of your Canadian friends you know. 
By now I am sure you have all heard about the coup d'etat attempt going on in our Nation's Capital.
I urge you to go to:
http://canadians4democracy.ca/
And sign the petition.
Kindest Regards,

In response I sent this email:

Mom, what's happening in Ottawa is a lot of things but anti-democratic isn't one of them. It's democracy in action! 

In the last federal election Stephen Harper and the Conservatives received 37.65% of the popular vote which resulted in 143 of the House of Commons' 308 seats... not enough to win a majority of a parliamentary vote by themselves. It's a situation that happens fairly frequently in parliamentary democracies. When a similar minority situation happened after the 1972 federal election, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau formed a coalition government with the NDP's David Lewis. In the UK it happened in 1918 with David Lloyd George forming the government with a coalition of Conservative, Liberal and Labour MPs. And in Ireland, prime minister Bernie Ahern has formed the government with the help of a coalition through three consecutive general elections. 

Coalition governments are a normal, integral part of the functioning in any parliamentary democracy. There are certain situations when a minority political party can govern without forming a coalition with other political parties. In the last parliament, for example, Harper's Conservatives had a minority without a coalition. What they did in that situation was ensure that every important legislative package had things in it that the other political parties could support. Essentially, they said, well, item A, B and C are Conservative goals, and item D is a Liberal goal, and because we need Liberal support to pass this bill that has A, B and C in it, we're also going to incorporate D into the legislation so the Liberals will vote for it. That's putting it simplistically. When it came time for a vote, both the Conservatives and the Liberals would vote for it, the bill would pass and the Conservatives continued to have the privilege of forming the government. 

Harper should have continued along the same course after this latest election. But when it came time to design the first important act of legislation after the last election, he changed his tactics. His first bill after the election was supposed to be a simple budget bill -- something that would get the government to the end of January, when Obama would presumably pass his stimulus package in the States, allowing the Canadian government to respond with a stimulus package of our own. Harper's tactic was smart -- it didn't make sense for us to do anything major until we found out what the U.S. was doing. 

The problem was, in what was supposed to be a simple budget bill, Harper included a number of unrelated things that none of the opposition parties liked. This is the part where Harper wasn't smart. For example, he incorporated a measure aimed at preventing public servants from striking—irritating the NDP in particular. Another Harper measure would have severely reduced funding for the opposition parties--irritating the Liberals and the Bloc. This was risky, but Harper thought he could get away with it because he figured no one would dare defeat the government and risk triggering a new election so close to the last election. 

Let's think about this for a second. At a time when the TSX is plunging 900 points. With Ontario's auto industry close to all-out collapse and Alberta's oil industry threatened by oil prices under $50 a barrel -- With all this instability facing our political system, Stephen Harper's first act of legislation was a risky ideological move that opened the possibility of a defeat of his government. To me, that's the most undemocratic thing about this whole business. 

Apparently Harper was under the impression that a political party with a minority of seats in the House of Commons, which received only 37.65% of the popular vote, could set the political agenda for the rest of the country, without soliciting cooperation from any of the other political parties. It seems to me that if we're flinging around words like "anti-democratic" then the term applies to Harper and the Conservatives more than any of the other leaders. This was cynical. This was arrogant. And it was profoundly undemocratic. It's simple arithmetic! 

Isn't this a time when Harper should have set aside politicking and concentrated on what's good for the country? Rather than attempting to pass a budget bill that included profoundly divisive legislative measures, shouldn't Harper have attempted to be the unifier, the one who brings the whole of the country together?

I am not a fan of Stephane Dion, or any of the other political parties. But calling what's happening in Ottawa "undemocratic" is inaccurate. It's democracy in action. And for triggering this turn of events, Stephen Harper should be ashamed of himself. 

OK, and then in response to that, my brother sent this email:

Chris – great factual account but couldn’t the government just have voted against the legislative package?

To which I responded:

Aw shoot that's a question I intended on answering in this email and then I got carried away. Good question. Yeah that's what's slated to happen Monday and what Harper wants to avoid -- Usually when the party that forms the government puts forward a budget bill, as this one is, and that budget bill is defeated, the government falls and that triggers a new election. At least, that's what usually happens. In this case, Harper figured none of the other parties would risk that, so they would hold their noses and avoid defeating this bill.

What Harper didn't take into account is that there is apparently a short window after an election when the opposition parties can defeat budget bills without triggering a new election. The Globe's editorial today explains this pretty well. Essentially, because this is the first important act of legislation after the previous election, defeating the bill doesn't trigger a new election if the other political parties can form a viable government. Somebody in the opposition parties realized this, saw their chance, and what is probably going to happen is that we'll have a transfer of power with Dion leading a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP and the voting cooperation of the Bloc. 

Comments

[wade sabean]

In the Canadian Democratic System, which Harper has before taken full advantage of, the Government can only remain in power as long as it has the majority support of the Commons. Therefore, as long as a majority of the MP's vaote for you then you remain in power. Since Harper does not have the support of the majority on the floor of the House of Commons he cannot continue in power. It does not matter if you are Leader of the largest Party in the House. The Queen's Loyal Opposition Party, the Liberal Party, now has the support of the majority of the MP's in the House of Commons. Therefore, the Leader can stake a claim to form the Government. Harper would do it if he had a chance as this is the way the British Parliamentary System works. It is perfectly normal, as long as anyone has the support of the majority in the House of Commons he or she can stake claim to form the Government. Elections are not needed to form a Government as long as this takes place with in the 5 years. An election would be needed if no one can get the support of the majority of the MP's.
So it is not a Coup in Canada, it's just our democracy functioning the way it is supposed to!!!

[wade sabean]

Harper is wasting tax payers money on trying to prevent democracy from working in Canada. The people elected MP's to their constituencies to represent them. Now those MP's represent them in the House of Commons and are their to make decisions and vote on behalf their constituents. A Government in Cnanda MUST control the floor of the Commons, and this means have the support of a simple majority in the Commons. It does NOT matter which Party supports. Now Harper, who has the largest Party does NOT have the support of a simple majority in the Commons. The opposition Parties, which includes the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (the second largest Party in the Commons) has the support of the Majority in the Commons. Therefore, they have a perfectly legitimate right to form a Government (Her Majesty's Government) in Canada's Parliamentary System. Harper's Party simply does not have the support of the Majority and therefore cannot continue in Government. His Government would not pass a vote of confidence in the Commons and would be out of power. What Harper is trying to do is circumvent the democratic process in Canada.