In defense of Canadian politics

As some of you may know, there’s been a lot of political drama in Canada over the last couple of weeks.  Back in our election in October, no single political party won enough seats to form a majority government.  This was the third consecutive election in which this has happened, due to the fact that we now have four major political parties to choose from (five in Quebec).  Truth be told, if the Liberal party can manage to get its act together before the next election, we are likely to continue this new tradition for the forseeable future.

Some people see this as a bad thing — they like the peace and quiet of a majority government.  After all, while you might not like what they are doing, at least you know you are stuck with them for four or five years, and you can mostly ignore them until the next election.  If they get up to shenanigans, well . . . there’s nothing you can do about it.

Minority governments are much messier.  All of a sudden, people with different viewpoints actually have to work together.  It’s noisy and ugly and infuriating.  And, ultimately, it’s way better for the country.

Parliaments, not Presidents

Canada has a parliamentary democracy.  This means we don’t elect a President, we elect politicians locally, to represent us in Parliament.  Those representatives then get together to form a government. 

The great thing about this system — when it works the way it is supposed to — is the checks and balances it places on government power.  Because we elect representatives, not parties or a president — we have a specific person to go to when our government is failing us, a person we can communicate with directly, and who has a vested interest in listening to our views.  And, in Parliament, each of those representatives has as much power as any other.  If enough of those representatives get together, they can make things happen.

In a parliamentary system, allegiances can change, and the balance of power can shift at any time, depending on the decisions of those representatives.  If a Prime Minister runs amok, representatives can come together and fire him.  A PM can’t arbitrarily start a war, for instance, without the support of a majority of the House.  He can’t get away with channeling government money to a program that pays kickbacks to his own party without the support of a majority of the House.  He is responsible to Parliament for every decision he makes on their behalf.

The problem with majority governments is that party loyalties usually work against holding the Prime Minister and Cabinet accountable for their actions.  Unfortunately, people don’t generally hold their friends to the same standards to which they hold their enemies.  And, as a result, Canadian history is replete with examples of majority governments who treated the Prime Minister like a president, and wielded their collective power to the detriment of those citizens who didn’t vote for them.  Majority government power has been used for everything from cutting social programs to taking control of specific industries to taking us to war.  It’s been used to enable and cover up corruption of all sorts, to subvert our laws, and to channel government funds to the friends of the ruling party.

Minority governments, on the other hand, are much harder to use in bad ways, because there are more eyes watching for the ruling party to screw up, and more willingness to do something about it, when they do.

The great thing about a minority government is that it requires the support of at least two parties to pass any legislation and to simply hold power.  It requires people to work together, and that is the true strength of the human race.  Canada is a diverse country, with a vast wealth of different perspectives and experiences.  Everybody — especially those active in politics — thinks their own viewpoint is right, but reality is seldom so simple.  A minority government ensures that at least a few extra viewpoints are considered when making decisions.  It is the ultimate “cabinet of rivals” that has been getting so much air time in the US, of late.

This coalition is right and proper

There’s been a lot of anger about the possibility of an NDP-Liberal-BQ coalition taking on the role of government.  A quick review of the negative comments on CBC articles (presumably by staunch Conservative supporters) have labelled this everything from “a deal with separatists” to “undemocratic” to “a coup”.  Hyperbole aside, whether I support the goals of this coalition or not (I do, but that’s irrelevant) — it is both right and proper under our Constitution.  Everybody in parliament knew the rules when the “game” was started — even if all voters didn’t bother to learn them — and until we as a people come together and change the rules, these are the rules that remain in effect.  To govern, you must hold the confidence of the majority of representatives in the House.  And if the majority of representatives want to align themselves in a different way, that is sufficient grounds for a new government to be formed.  We did not elect a party or a President.

Now, I don’t have a problem with people contacting their MPs to tell them what they think.  That’s very much their right and responsibility.  But, ultimately, if the coalition parties want to come together to form a government, that is their right, and we get to hold them accountable the next time there is an election and not before.

The problem with Conservative Party talk of “going over the heads of Parliament” to take their case “to the Canadian people” is that it is far closer to a coup than anything the coalition parties have done.  They are trying to inflame passions — presumably to scare coalition members or the Governor General into doing what they want — and that’s a dangerous thing.  And suspending Parliament to avoid losing a non-confidence vote is particularly worrisome.  Canada — by Constitution — is a representative parliamentary democracy.  We elect representatives to government and they represent us in Parliament.  We as citizens have no recourse to forcibly change our representatives except through an election, and talking of “going over the heads of Parliament” flies in the face of the rule of law.  They are encouraging mob rule.

Further, the rhetoric about the evils of including “separatists” in the coalition is both racist and undemocratic.  Like it or not, the people in 49 Quebec ridings elected Bloc Quebecois members to represent them, and for the Prime Minister to say that those representatives should not have equal standing in the House with any other member is obscene.  You don’t have to agree with them, but they are there because they were duly elected by Canadian citizens in those ridings.

Why I support the coalition

I’m an NDP supporter — a democratic socialist, civil libertarian, and all around nice guy.  ;-)  I support this coalition because I — like a large majority of Canadians — want action on the economy, want action on global warming, believe in government support for our civil society, and don’t support the “crime agenda” of the Conservatives (which I believe will result in less justice and more crime).  I also support this coalition because I think there is a lot of common ground amongst Canadians who voted for the different parties, and that we should focus our government efforts on that common ground.

That all said, I have my doubts.  I don’t think Stéphane Dion is the man for the job — everything I’ve seen of him indicates he is timid, a poor communicator, and all around too dithering to get things done.  Of course, that can be easily solved — the Liberals have a wealth of people to choose from for a replacement.  Oddly enough, my doubts about the BQ’s long-term intentions are much smaller — partly because the BQ has a fairly strong bias for progressive government policies.  (And, on a practical note, nothing activates Quebec separatism quite like the denigration of Quebec by the rest of Canada — at the moment, the biggest agitator for Quebec separatism is our current Prime Minister.)

Ultimately, though, I want a PM who isn’t a bully, who doesn’t think things are his way or the highway, who doesn’t practice divide-and-conquer politics — somebody with a bit of humility, and a recognition that there are valid viewpoints other than his own.  In other words, I think there are tons of MPs, currently in the house — and even within the Conservative caucus — who would do a better job.  To be honest, if the Conservatives offered up a better leader, I might be more inclined to think there were other workable options to pushing them out of the way.

And, finally, I don’t care to go back to the polls over this.  We just elected a Parliament.  By law, they have four years, and we have lots of urgent problems to solve.  It’s well past time they make it work — however which way they want to do it.