Canada's Coalition - The Guardian Gets It

The Conservatives may be screaming like vampires who stumbled into the sunlight but it's not like anyone shoved them out the front door. They (or at least their astonishing arrogant leader) created the mess they find themselves in.

Being a tad partisan, it can be uncomfortable weighing what's going on in Ottawa right now. So I was relieved when I came upon Michael Stickings take in The Guardian. His op-ed piece is excerpted below:

Some background: Back in 2006, Harper's Conservatives, a fusion of the old Progressive Conservative party and the newer Reform party, defeated then-Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals and formed a minority government with 124 of the 308 seats. It was the first time the right had been in federal power since 1993. Then, hoping to capitalise on good poll numbers and the apparent weakness of the Liberals, and specifically Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, Harper called another election, on October 14, less than two months ago. Once again, the Conservatives were only able to win a minority of the seats, though they managed to expand their caucus to 143 while the Liberals plummeted to 77 seats, a distant second. Harper was therefore able to form another minority government with about 46% of the seats in the House (while having won less than 38% of the popular vote).

It is an historic and somewhat unsettling development, plunging the country into the sort of instability of which it is unaccustomed. And yet Canada is not turning into Italy, which tends to change governments as frequently as some people change underwear. And it is not a coup, as some of its critics are suggesting. Rather, it is a strategic parliamentary move, made by three parties who hold a majority of the seats in the lower house of parliament to unite for a common purpose in a time of crisis. Canada will survive it. And, it may be, however rare in our history, the best thing for the country.

...After the October election, Harper, like George Bush in 2004, claimed that he had been given a stronger mandate to govern, a result of the Conservatives winning more seats than they had in 2006. The difference is that Bush actually did win a majority of the vote in 2004 (though, of course, his win over Kerry was narrow). The Conservatives may have won more seats this year, but they still only won a minority. That's not much of a mandate, and certainly not enough of a mandate to push through a radical agenda by Canadian standards, which is what Harper was evidently looking to do. Indeed, the Conservative's reality-denying economic plan does not include a stimulus plan but does include such right-wing proposals as revoking public sector workers' right to strike for one year and banning pay equity complaints from going to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Under the terms of the opposition deal, the Liberal-NDP coalition will be in place until June 30, 2011. A 24-member cabinet will have 18 Liberals and six New Democrats. The BQ will support the coalition on all confidence votes until June 30, 2010 (through two budgets); thereby keeping the coalition in power, but it will not have any cabinet spots. And the prime minister would be, of all people, Dion - at least until the Liberals select a new leader, possibly former Harvard professor and noted international relations expert Michael Ignatieff or former Ontario premier Bob Rae (who, interestingly, was head of the NDP government from 1990 to 1995).

For their part, the Conservatives are, predictably, attacking the deal as undemocratic and even traitorous, arguing that it is a blatant effort to undermine the will of the people and their popular mandate (which they claim they have, despite the results of the election). They further claim that the coalition members are relying on an anti-Canadian party (the BQ, even though the Conservatives have a long history of playing to soft nationalism in Quebec (the BQ was born largely out of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative party). Conservatives argue that if anything, there should be another election, not a transfer of power to the coalition. They may try to end the current session of the House (a "prorogue") in order to avoid a no-confidence vote. At the very least, Harper may be able to persuade governor general Michaëlle Jean that another election is necessary, plunging the country into electoral uncertainty once more.

Meanwhile, the Liberals and the New Democrats, with the support of their BQ colleagues, are rightly pointing out that each member of Parliament has a mandate and that the will of the people, as reflected in the results of the election, is with them, the majority. And, of course, they're quite right. Together, they have more seats than the Conservatives. It's as simple as that. And if they think they can govern under the terms of the deal, then, assuming a no-confidence vote is held and goes against the Conservatives – and there ought to be one, for the government has clearly lost the confidence of the House – they ought to be given the opportunity to do so. The question now is whether the opening that appeared to be there on Monday is now closed.

This sort of thing happens in parliamentary democracies, including mature ones, with governments falling and coalitions forming and parties moving in and out of power. We are used to greater stability in Canada, to be sure, but we've had minority governments under Harper and before that under Martin's Liberals, since 2004, with no end in sight.

With the country, like the rest of the world, in the middle of a serious economic and financial crisis, and with the government unable and unwilling to do anything about it, it's time for new and vigorous leadership in Ottawa. The three opposition parties think they can provide it, which is why they took this incredible and seemingly un-Canadian step. Let's hope they're right. And let's hope it happens.