Photo Credit: Igougo

A few months ago I wrote a paper for a poli-sci class predominantly in response to an article we were instructed to read by Juan Linz. Linz had contrasted presidential with parliamentary democracy, leaning heavily towards the latter as the preferred system of government for most democracies. I couldn’t help but take issue. After all, Linz had never seen the likes of Stephen Harper. Harper, I argued, was already proving that there are several ways to make a mockery of Parliamentarianism’s famed ‘checks and balances,’ the devices often cited by those like Linz as the selling points of the system. Indeed, Harper had (incredibly) exemplified how a prime minister with a penchant for despotism could effectively rule a liberal, democratic state almost autocratically, and that it was high time for Canada to reconsider its parliamentary system as a means to facilitate democracy.

And then things got even worse…

On the 30th of December, 2009, Stephen Harper prorogued parliament…. again, effectively leaving Canada, a member of the G8 and a country currently promoting ‘democracy’ in the Middle East, without a sitting government for months. The most sickening thing about him taking this extraordinary measure was that it was seemingly for nothing. Well, not nothing, the Conservatives said it was so they could ‘rethink’ their economic plan…

Rethink their economic plan?

That’s like saying they needed a holiday from doing their job in order to think about doing their job. Why on earth couldn’t they work on their “plan” with Parliament in session? The answer is: of course they could. That is their actual job. So the prorogation was a 100% unnecessary smokescreen. It’s was a lie. It was transparently enacted so that they could avoid questions on the Canadian military’s impropriety in Afghanistan, their failure to do anything progressive on the environment, and to leave themselves free not to engage in any upcoming controversies surrounding the Olympics. In other words, the Conservatives literally didn’t feel like dealing with any democratic opposition for the next little while, and prorogued in the hopes that the respite would blow things over. But to take such a extraordinary parliamentary measure to merely avoid having to face opposition in the House of Commons is to completely undermine and counteract the entire purpose of the parliamentary system. It reduces it to a farce. It’s forfeiting the parliamentary system, and doing so without penalty. It’s a cowardly fraud. And what’s worse, it seems not only can Harper shut down the whole system but he can get away with it too. Of course, that’s exactly why he does it, because he knows he can get away with it! And why? Because he’s already developed a proven formula for skirting parliamentary checks and balances, and we, as the electorate, just keep letting it happen…

Here’s how:

Confidence.

The parliamentary system actually developed as a reaction to autocracy, and beyond its inherently democratic nature, contains ‘checks and balances’ designed to keep its prime minister from becoming despotic. Specifically, the prime minister is always meant to be held accountable to parliament by confidence. The PM needs the confidence of the House in order to pass his/her government’s legislation. That translates into votes. Naturally, if a party has a majority, confidence typically isn’t a problem as a prime minister’s government should be able to pass its legislation if the party toes the line. If the majority government then becomes abusive, the electorate can simply vote for the other party at the next election; punishment being the government’s removal from power. However, if there is a minority government, life is more precarious as the government (hypothetically) does not start out with full confidence of the House. Either way, if the prime minister loses the confidence of the House, and no longer has the votes to pass his/her legislation, the government can be dissolved and either a) an election can be called, or b), an opposing coalition can ask the Head of State for the permission to form a new government.

Part of Canada’s current parliamentary problem is due to the fact that Canada has too many federal parties. This may seem counterintuitive to some. After all, more parties mean more democratic choice, right? Wrong. Without proportional representation, most votes are entirely wasted, as the First-Past-the-Post system of voting over-represents the winners (usually the big parties) and under-represents the losers (usually the small parties). It also means there are less votes for the other party because the votes are dispersed to a greater field. This is why the classic Westminster system typically only has room for 2 or 3 parties: it’s easier to install the other party if the government gets out of line. This is also what helps to keep governing parties accountable: they know that if they want to prolong their governance they have to keep the electorate happy. Consequently, with only 2 or 3 parties, the system naturally creates brokerage parties that try and cater to as many people as possible. This was the case through most of Canada’s existence, however, there are now 5 federal parties that everyone is getting used to. This extra ‘choice’ has diluted the votes, ensuring more minority governments, as well as allowing the parties to stretch apart and become more ideological, especially the Conservatives, who have gone from being the Progressive Conservatives of yore (moderately right), to a united right under the leadership of very rightwing neo-cons. The remainder of the parties all sit to the left of them. Thus, the left is completely fractured and it has become nearly impossible to vote the other party in. So, while the parties on the left obtained about 62% of the votes in the last election, the Conservatives govern without the fear of a strong opposition or reprisal at the election booth.

The classic brokerage party, the Liberal party of Canada, is the only other party that still has any legitimate shot of creating a government. However, parliamentarians watch the polls, and the Liberal party will not attempt to bring down the government if their poll numbers don’t suggest that they can create their own. This would be hard enough with all the left wing competition, but to put things on ice, Harper employs two tricks:
First, he continually acts like he is in an election race, attacking the Liberals at any opportunity. No matter what content the Liberals, as the official opposition, bring forth as a critique of the government, Harper and his Conservatives respond with personality attacks. They never engage content. Unfortunately, these negative sound bites seem to work and drop the Liberals further down the polls. Secondly, Harper makes nearly every piece of legislation (unnecessarily) a confidence matter. The Liberals then check the polls, see that they are in no position to call an election, and prop up his legislation for fear of triggering an election they will inevitably lose if they vote ‘no confidence’. This coerces the Liberals into occasionally voting in favour of legislation they would normally oppose, making them appear hypocritical and weak. This appearance also makes their poll numbers slip, and the process is repeated. It is a vicious cycle with seemingly no end in sight, reducing the Liberal party, the federal party that gave Canada universal health care, that patriated our constitution, gave us student loans, the Canadian flag, the Canadian pension plan, official bilingualism, enshrined multiculturalism, gay marriage, gave the world peace keepers, kept us out of Iraq, and espouses virtually everything we hold dear about our country, to an impotent laughing stock. Yet, this laughing stock remains the only party that can challenge the Conservatives to form a government.

With the Liberals so lowly, the only other option to getting rid of Harper is to form a coalition. Coalitions are not remarkable to progressive European countries, as they are often a practical reality of voting systems with proportional representation. For instance, the Scandinavian countries (which are usually adjudged to be better places to live than Canada) all employ systems of PR, and are used to coalitions. As is Germany, a federal, parliamentary state like Canada, which tends to out perform us in every way. We (almost) tried this option at the end of 2008, but to disastrous results. While it was a viable option for the opposition parties to unite and propose a coalition to the Head of State if they have lost confidence in the government, Harper, in a desperate bid to save his job, once again showed how a despotic prime minister could skirt the checks and balances of the parliamentary system. Firstly, he went on TV to mislead Canadians into believing that the coalition might be illegal (which it wasn’t), then took the time to denigrate the Liberals (as usual) for getting into bed with the ‘socialists’ and ‘separatists’, alienating would-be supporters, and finally, before the coalition could act, he asked the GG to prorogue parliament, essentially keeping the threat locked out. Technically, the GG (acting as the representative of the Head of State) actually had power in this situation to say ‘no’- again, this reserve constitutional power being endowed to prevent parliamentary shenanigans- but convention dictated that the GG act on the advice of the PM, and Mme Jean, who had the chance of a lifetime to set an unprecedented precedent, proved to be a completely and utterly useless figure head, allowing the PM to essentially run and hide. Thus, Harper proved that even without the confidence of the House, which the system is based on, he could not be held accountable. It also dashed the chance of any coalition in the near future.

Therefore, if this Prime Minister of a minority government, who isn’t directly elected, has created a situation where he cannot lose votes of confidence, cannot lose elections, and cannot be overruled by the head of state, he has proven the complete failure of the parliamentary system in which he is the head of government, and is no longer democratically accountable. i.e. we are now living in a ‘democratic’ country that has been effectively hijacked by one person. He does not fear elections, nor does he fear coalitions. He has proven he can escape both. And this is why he can prorogue again: because nothing can stop him. It is a monumental abuse of power. I cannot stress how remarkable this situation actually is. Canadians, regardless of party, should be in coup d’état mode. We no longer have a democracy. We have a despotic ruler who has manipulated the system so much that he has effectively created loopholes in the very fabric of a system that was designed to repel despotism.

Ultimately, this comes back to us. It is our fault. In 2008 there were a couple of North American elections. Canadians were crazy about the USA’s Obama, with polls suggesting that roughly 80% of Canadians would vote for him given the chance, yet meanwhile, back home, we had an even more progressive leader trying to become prime minister, named Stephane Dion, and we hung him out to dry. And why? Because he had glasses and couldn’t speak english well. One could infer that it clearly wasn’t Obama’s policies we were in love with- a more multilateral & peaceful foreign policy, universal health care, progressive rights like gay marriage, etc- because we already had those things. Nay, clearly we were in love with the superficiality of charisma. Indeed, Dion was not charismatic, and Harper exploited that. He made Dion appear weak and indecisive. This Machiavellian tactic goes back hundreds of years, and apparently, it still works. Dion looked like a geek, therefore his policies didn’t matter. But what a different country it would be were Dion to have become PM. We would have gone into Copenhagen as one of the leading voices for environmental reform. Instead we were the bane of many a country’s existence, winning the Fossil of the Year Award for being the most disruptive country in negotiations. Perhaps we would have had a national day care system. And we may have had a bailout to the financial disaster even quicker (Harper’s initial plan was solely to cut 24 million in funding to the opposition parties – notice a trend?- which is what lead to the coalition in the first place). But Canadians elected to stick with Harper. After all, he seemed more alpha… And look where it got us?

Just over a year later, here we are, embarrassed on the world stage, stagnant in domestic policy, absorbing tyrannical abuse of power after tyrannical abuse of power, and currently without a sitting government. It all seemingly goes unnoticed though, and why? Because he can play Beatles songs on the piano. Indeed, Canadians are treated by their own PM with nothing but contempt, because Canadians are entirely deserving of contempt. We know nothing about our own political situation and Harper knows that. During the coalition drama of 2008, 51% of Canadians polled believed Harper was directly elected! 42% thought he was the Head of State (more than thought either Jean or the Queen were)! So maybe that’s why he can act like the Head of State. Maybe it’s why he could go on TV and lie to us that the coalition was illegal, maybe it’s why he prorogues parliament on the day they name the Canadian Mens’ Olympic hockey team, because he knows no one will be paying attention, and even if we were, we wouldn’t even know what to do with the information. Maybe it’s why he’ll unilaterally appoint more Conservative senators to the red chamber while Parliament is prorogued, despite the fact he was the party leader that campaigned to democratize it. Anything to bury the Liberals, even when they’re not allowed on the playing field. Alas… if knowledge is power, ignorance is disempowerment. And Canadians are most certainly powerless…

But not forever. Although the opposition parties can’t stop him, and we the people can’t impeach him, there are term limits, hence, there will eventually be another election. With our non-representative system of First-Past-the-Post, it is absolutely imperative that one votes strategically. Anything else is completely, and foolishly irresponsible. Although one may argue that might not seem ‘democratic’, this idealism is ignorant of the fact we do not have a proportional or direct democracy. We have a democratic system. And the system does not care if you want to vote for a smaller party like the Greens. Your vote is wasted. End of story. Thus, until we have proportional representation (and a firm scolding seems appropriate to the electorate in British Columbia of rejecting their chance for it), it is critical for those who are appalled by Harper’s blatant disregard for the establishment in which he is the prime minister, and to the people of Canada with whom he treats with such contempt, that we, in oppositional unison, unite under one party to knock him down. It is the only way within the parliamentary system to punish him. You may not like the Liberal party, you may not like its leader, but if you don’t like Harper it is your only choice.

The first thing is to call on your MP to make a stink about the situation. Keep the issue the on the lips of MPs and in the minds of the voters for when parliament eventually returns. This should hurt Harper’s poll numbers. Some have suggested that MPs be encouraged to go back to work regardless, but that can’t really happen. The only thing that can really be done is to hammer Harper at the polls. If the Liberals numbers go up, they will more likely have the strength to challenge the government with a vote of ‘no confidence’. This will lead to an election, where Canadians, if they play their cards right, can do away with Harper once and for all. Again, this massive undertaking of strategy might bother some who want to vote with their hearts, but unfortunately our entire system is so fractured we now need to vote with our heads. However, anyone can still encourage their MP to take up the position of calling for a proportional representation system to be included in his/her party’s platform. That way, hopefully, we won’t always have to vote so strategically in the future.

In the meantime, if Canada is to reestablish its democracy, a changing of the guard is urgently required. Harper has manifested the failure of the system’s status quo, and with the option of a coalition already squandered, voting strategically is the only thing we can do within our current parliamentary situation to punish and correct this despotic abuse of power. But considering the damage that’s already been done, perhaps it’s even time we looked at greater structural change. Indeed, PR seems essential if we are to keep the parliamentary system, as parliament would become more representative, and governing more consensus based, but with the Queen getting older, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to start considering our options beyond this. The transition of power from Her to Charles would be the opportune moment to reevaluate the role of the monarchy in Canada. While the easiest thing to do would be to permanently replace the monarch with GGs, there are other options, some with even more democratic legitimacy. The presidential system seems unlikely in Canada, for nationalistically cultural reasons, but perhaps the semi-presidential system of France is worth a look. Regardless, it seems clear that Canada is proving the storied parliamentary system, with all its checks and balances, is less dependable than previously thought. Simply put, it’s failing. And it now seems essential to correct it before any more damage can be done.

Related posts:

1. A Prorogation Primer: Understanding What You Are Protesting and That “Prime Minister” and “Prorogation” Are Not the Same In all the excitement about prorogation it has become fairly...
2. Baseless: Stephen Harper’s Liberal Solution HCBAX9NPSJB8 It is a truism that the Conservative’s base votes....
3. "PRO"rogue – Stephen Harper's Early Christmas Present PM Stephen Harper asked Santa for a prorogation of parliament...
4. Prorogue: Stephen Harper Goes “All In” Any follower of professional poker knows that Stephen Harper...
5. Harper Bites Liberal Budget Bullet MPs voted 214 to 84 in favour of the Liberal...

Tags: canadian politics, parliament, prime minister, prorogue, stephen harper

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 6:33 pm and is filed under Federal Election, Federal Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.