The Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has been spreading false information about how our parliamentary system works. They have been claiming that the transfer of power from the Conservative Party to the coalition under Stéphane Dion is a "coup" and that Dion does not have the right to lead a government.Why are the Conservatives doing this? There are two possible explanations ...
- They believe what they are saying, in which case they are stupid and ignorant about how parliament works. They don't deserve to be the government.
- They know they are lying but they hope to convince Canadians that they're telling the truth. Because they are liars and because they have such a low opinion of the average Canadian, they don't deserve to lead a government.
Peter Russell is a Professor Emeritus in the Dept. of Political Science at the University of Toronto. We have tangled on a number of issues but always with mutual respect (I hope). He is a very smart man and you don't want him to catch you spreading lies about politics. Here's part of his column in today's Toronto Star [Constitution and precedent are on coalition's side].
If there is an alternative government available that has a reasonable prospect of being supported for a period of time by a majority in the House of Commons, she would have reason to decline Harper's request. Harper would then have to resign, and the Governor General would commission Dion to form a government.Harper is wrong. The only remaining question is whether he is stupid or a liar (or both).
If this happens, again there would be no "usurpation" of power but a proper application of the rules and principles of parliamentary democracy. It has been very disturbing to hear over the last few days, from people who should know better, wild unparliamentary theories about our system of government. Elections are not simple popularity contests in which the leader whose party garners the most votes gets all the power.
I am greatly concerned that there is so little public knowledge of the constitutional rules that govern our parliamentary system of government. These rules are not formally written down in a legal text or taught in our schools. Maybe the most important lesson to take from the situation we are now living through is to begin to codify as much as we can of this "unwritten" part of our Constitution and to ensure that it is well taught in our schools.
Who is to blame for this mess? Peter has the correct answer ....
These precedents and many, many others illustrate the basic point that in parliamentary democracies we elect parliaments not prime ministers, and that the Governor General (or the presidential head of state in a republican parliamentary system) must be advised by ministers who are supported by a majority in the elected house of parliament.
Now let's apply these rules of parliamentary democracy to the situation Canada now faces. After the Oct. 14 election, Stephen Harper remained Prime Minister, formed a new government and prepared to face the House. Although his party had improved its seat total it was still in a minority position in the House. This meant that to continue in office Harper would have to win enough support from the opposition benches to secure the confidence of the House.
For a few days it appeared that Harper would reach out in a conciliatory manner and garner the parliamentary support he needs on order to have the right to govern.
But, to put it mildly, on Nov. 27 just a few days into the session, through his finance minister's economic update, he made an abrupt U-turn. Instead of seeking support from the opposition, his government presented an in-your-face, take-it-or-leave-it position.
The opposition parties – all three of them – decided not to take it. Instead, they announced that they would use their collective majority in the House to vote no confidence in the Harper government and support an alternative coalition government.
Hear hear. They keep using the phrase "coup" as if Dion were leading a team of commandos to parliament hill.
ReplyDeleteTo borrow a phrase, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
It is repugnant to hear our "Right Honourable" Prime Minister and the Conservative Party constantly spouting so much misinformation. It makes me cringe to see how much dishonesty has become part of the culture on the Hill. And judging by many of the comments on the talk-shows here in Alberta,the public are lapping it up. Harper can do no wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Harper attended a seminar on how to govern like GW Bush.
ReplyDeleteThat's what you get for having an unwritten constitution. We 'Merkins have had a written one from the beginning and you can see how swimmingly things have gone down here ...
ReplyDeleteCanadian PM Shuts Down Parliament to Avoid No-Confidence Vote
ReplyDeleteThere was additional discussion of the subject on CTV today... link at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/harper_undemocratic_081204/20081204?hub=Politics ... more or less the same material.
ReplyDeleteWhat's especially galling about this is a coalition of his opponents is especially appropriate in light of Harper's reckless brinkmanship over the last session. He deliberately rolled anything controversial into confidence motions, more or less saying 'do it my way or face election', knowing his opposition was splintered. This means he gets to act like he won in a landslide, and never mind he's only got a minority. Then when he calls an election (breaking his own new rule, remember) and realized he couldn't beat those numbers, he figured he'd just go back to the same game.
So he finally got called on it. And by a method that was entirely appropriate to the now rather bizarre situation he himself is very much the cause of. It's legal, sane, and though a bit of a kludge, it makes the best of a bad job. And most of all, if you're going to abuse the process that way, you shouldn't have the confidence of the house.
And remember, he got called out by an opposition whose economic platforms are close enough that coalition is actually quite sensible enough. Hell, there were pundits talking about NDP/Liberal coalitions well prior to the election vote, on the basis that it was harder and harder to see real daylight between their platforms.
But Harper just lied his ass off about it to dodge that bullet, the way he so cheerfully does about pretty much everything. And now it'll be socialist this, communist that, separatist this, from the endless throng of misinformed thralls he now has at his beck and call, endlessly, from now until the end of January, in an attempt to scare people away from his opponents, break up their coalition.
It's his only real talent, really. Cranking up the noise machine. Man's a menace. If the nation and his opposition know what's good for them, they'll hang tough, and kick his lying ass back across parliament's aisle, the way he so desperately deserves. This is the best we can do; and I find it personally regrettable he can't simply be kicked out of the house entirely. There's no place for demagoguery like his in our nation.
Harper said that he would never allow a government to form if it needed to have the explicit support of the Bloc Quebecois. So he has decreed that only members of federalists parties in Quebec may support a government.
ReplyDeleteSo if Quebec wants a voice in a government, they are required to vote conservative, liberal or NDP, according the Harper.
If Quebecers feel this to be an insufferable illegal abrogation of their democratic rights under the Canadian constitution (which it plainly is), then they obviously have no choice but to form their own country, where the democratic will of whomever they elect will be respected.
It is Harper's goal to get Quebec to separate. His party would then likely command strong majorities in the rest of Canada for some time to come.
John Pieret says,
ReplyDeleteThat's what you get for having an unwritten constitution.
I realize that your comment was very much tongue-in-cheek but it reminds me of something I saw on CNN last week.
There were a bunch of talking heads discussing the long wait between the November election and the swearing in ceremony at the end of January. All of them agreed that there was nothing they could do about it since it was written into the Constitution. Apparently the Founding Fathers wanted there to be two months of lame-duck President and the wishes of the Founding Fathers should not be questioned.
Hmmm ... I took a quick look at the Constitution and couldn't find any mention of Presidential elections (or primaries) anywhere.
John, do you know which part of the Constitution they are referring to? Where does it specify November elections and a two month wait until the inauguration?
It seems to me that the current method of selecting a President is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Am I missing something?
I'm not even sure the Constitution specifies when the Electoral College should meet. Does it?
Originally, the delay was much longer. According to the 12th Amendment to the U.S. constitution (ratified in 1804), the president was not inaugurated until March 4. This period of time was necessary so that the electoral college could meet and deliberate, so that the news could travel, and so that the new president could make his way to the capital. Remember that in the 1800s everything was being done with horse power and roads were fairly rare. Picking up your family and moving was somewhat more arduous than it is today.
ReplyDeleteBy the early 20th century, it became clear that four months was no longer necessary. But time was still needed for the electoral college vote, which occurs on Dec. 15. The 20th amendment moved inauguration day to Jan. 20.
See http://www.courant.com/features/hc-webinauguration.artnov06,0,7693434.story
While the start of the presidential term, i.e. inaugeration day, is set by the Constitution, the date for the election is simply set by Congress.
ReplyDeletehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_presidential_election_in_November
Congress could shorten the time between the election and the change in administrations by moving the election back into December or even January.
There is a reason it takes us longer to change administrations than in a parlimentary government like yours. Your executive is made up of MPs who are serving in government already and who can form shadow cabinets and the like and have access to at least some of the same information as the current administration. We have to bring in new people, not presently in government, at all non-civil-servant positions and get them up to speed.