Parliamentary Democracy - Exciting?
Man, Canadian politics is getting exciting.
Yep, that's right. I used "Canadian politics" and "exciting" in the same sentence without sarcasm.
I know!
Sure, it's exciting in a geeky, current event watching, this-is-how-a-parliamentary-democracy-can-work kind of way. But still.
Today's latest is that the Liberals & NDP have been able to form a coalition with Dion at the helm in the event of a non-confidence vote and the GG turns to them instead of sending us back to the polls. Whee! Unless, of course, Harper decides to porouge the session, which would either only put off the confidence vote, or else give them a chance to fiddle with their budget/economic package, the bone of contention in this whole thing.
I know that this whole deal is not without its challenges and questions. Many people don't like the fact that the coalition would be dependent upon the Bloc, given it's basis for existence, but I'm not too fussed over that point. Maybe I should be. However, it seems to me that the goals of the Bloc these days have far more to do with looking out for Quebec instead of succeeding.
Folks are also pointing out that they didn't vote for Dion as PM, which is absolutely true. However, 60 some percent of Canadians DID NOT vote for Harper... but that's how things work in a parliamentary democracy. First past the post and all. Interestingly enough, a coalition gov't taking over in these circumstances... well, that's also the way things can work in a parliamentary democracy, too.
I keep coming back around to the fact that the Conservatives are a minority government. Good on them for getting to steer the boat, but they don't have complete control over all the oars and so they shouldn't be acting like they do. Everyone should be, you know, COMPROMISING.
What really gets to me is the stuff the Conservatives tried to pass with a minority government, (taking away civil servants right to strike and removing the per vote funding to parties, for example). If that's what they try as a minority, I am apprehensive as to the way the wind would blow if they had a majority.
Right now the next 'move' is supposed to come with the vote on Monday the 8th. Things are looking pretty interesting on the Hill.
Comments
As someone else has already pointed out - Harper did not "win" the election. That would require 50%+1 seat. He may have won more seats than the others but not the election.
I agree the block is a bit dicey, but apparently they have signed an agreement to support the coalition on matters of confidence and budget until sometime in 2010.
And Harper is just being downright dishonest and petty - not the "I'll consult and work with parliament". And further, no one voted for Harper (unless you were in the Calgary riding) - you voted for a member of parliament (and I know you know that!)
Enough ranting - you're going to tell me to use my own blog !!! ; )
These are all perfectly valid actions/reactions in a parliamentary democracy. Whether or not it's wise, or recommended, or people agree with it, etc. is another point. But that's what I was (trying) to get to - we haven't seen this kind of thing in ages. It's kinda crazy how it could all shake down.
I don't understand how this is "socialistic." It seems like a false dichotomy - socialism on one side and democracy on the other. What's your thinking behind that? It just doesn't seem obvious to me, is all.
As far as I understand it, it isn't 'undemocratic.' The government is not over-ruling a vote. It's a perfectly legit way for our form of government to function. The way our system works is that you have to have the confidence of the house in order to rule and you have to do that by passing motions that will pass with a majority. Back in 2004, the Bloc, NDP and Conservatives were all ready with a coalition in the event of a non-confidence motion during Martin's tenure as PM. It's just rare that things turn out like this in Canada.
What I think is the greater issue is whether or not one agrees with the economic package that is being proposed, since that is what the government and opposition parties are fighting over, not the governing processes right now. And to that I really don't feel like I know enough about economics to have a really clear call either way.
1. Say we do go to an election. Very few folks will be impressed and I'm going to hazard a guess and say that things probably won't turn out too much differently than 2 months ago. That election should send a message that our MPs must get their act together and start being flexible since the population is obviously split as to how things should run.
#2. If a Lib/NDP Coalition forms, they are not going to have enough seats to carry a majority on their own which means they will need to be flexible and work with the Torys and the Bloc. Otherwise, they get a vote of non-confidence and fold and we're back at elections. See point #1 above. Ad infintum.
Either way, our MPs really have to get their act together.
In other news - Check out RallyforCanada.com
I can get why folks would want to get out for this, (though I'm irked that a coalition is somehow not 'for Canada.' but anyway) but the really poor part in this is optics. You live in Montreal: Any reason why having a rally over other events (i.e. scheduled memorials) on December 6th is bad optics?
Yep.
They are far more interesting and articulate than me if you want to be keeping up on the low down.
While I am ignorant about how a parliament like ours can function, I think the current events are serving to educate us. Like you, I find this all VERY interesting to say the least. But I do think the opposition are acting like a bunch of babies who've been told they won't be getting all they want for Christmas. Unlike you, I wonder who wouldn't want to show up for the Rally for Canada. What the coalition is doing isn't FOR Canada, they are continuing in a pattern of refusing to cooperate and are forcing a second unnecessary election, (which like you indicated, will probably create similar results) wasting more tax payer money than we can afford to spend right now.
As for my comment on socialism rearing its ugly head, here's what I meant: True only 40% of the population voted for a Conservative government, meaning 60% voted for the rest of what makes up parliament. BUT we did not vote between two parties. There are 4 different parties represented in Parliament, so those 60% who didn't vote conservative chose from the other 3 parties. What is undemocratic is that those 3 remaining parties have joined forces to overthrow the conservative government and take control. NOBODY voted for this "new" coalition. The three parties on their own didn't win any popularity votes. The NDP is socialist to it's core, the Bloc is separatist and not "FOR" Canada, and the Liberal Party is chaotic and ununified. Their "leader" was so disgraced in the last election that it looked like he would be forced to step down. Now somehow, he is leading the coalition and could be our new PM? Very few Canadians wanted him as PM and yet somehow, they are forcing a PM on Canada that was not elected as such. That is socialism.
My second objection is with the issue at hand that has caused all this; the economy. Call me simple minded if you will, but I don't think spending more money is a good long term answer for economic stability. In the short term, sure, some auto workers get to keep their jobs and spend more this Christmas...but in the long term they will be out of jobs. Short term measures to stimulate the economy is a temporary fix at best, at worst will put us in a worse financial postion than before.
I suspect the motivations are twofold:
1. The elimination of the $1.95-per-vote taxpayer subsidy for politicians and their parties. Thus parties who have weak support bases will loose funding that could be used to booster their image and support.
2. The NDP's objection to suspending the ability for unionized workers to strike until 2011 and the crackdown on double pay-equity settlements. (We probably disagree on this point, I know...so I won't comment on that.)
Sorry for the long winded rant...I hope you know it is all in good fun, though probably "uncanadian" of us, eh? But friends can disagree and still be friends right?What I don't know a lot about, as you mentioned, is the economy. I will totally concede that Harper may have the better plan, I just don't know. However, some of his measures seemed heavy-handed and not that helpful and I suppose that's what I object to primarily.
I (think) I understand all your points in your second paragraph, and can totally see where you're coming from, but am still not sure how it's socialism.
Perhaps the money quote is: Very few Canadians wanted him as PM and yet somehow, they are forcing a PM on Canada that was not elected as such. That is socialism.
I can certainly understand the anger at getting a PM we didn't vote for, but I think is still comes down to being a point of parliamentary democracy - like Cindy mentioned above, no one, except those in Calgary South and card carrying members of the Conservative Party, voted for Harper (the same for Dion, but change the riding and party).
I guess I've always known that we have aspects of our culture and policy that are socialist-leaning, but I never thought about the government structure itself being socialist. Perhaps we'll just have to chat that one out! (More than once I've lamented that there's no font to indicate tone and body language! :)
My mom (she teaches political science) told me today she is going out of her mind as she follows all of this!
It's crazy, but if this coalition takes over the government, it will be completely legal and is a part of how our democratic system is meant to function. The GG has the power to give the coalition control of the government or to call an election. Part of her purpose is to protect Canadians from repeated back-to-back elections.
About socialism--while Wikipedia isn't exactly the gold standard of reliable sources when it comes to details, their general definitions of democracy and socialism sum up my understanding of the two concepts. Socialism is "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society," whereas democracy is "is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system." Canada is a democracy that is capitalist in some ways and socialist in others. A socialist country can be a democracy, a dictatorship, a weird hybrid of the two (ie Cuba), etc. Sweden is a good example of a country that is both very much socialist and very much a democracy. The two cannot be used as opposites because they are different types of systems with different concerns. I'm not meaning to lecture or anything--it's just a bit of a personal pet peeve of mine because it bothers me when I see the term socialism being used inaccurately as a sort of bogeyman. This is commonly done with feminism as well (but that's a different topic).
That being said, for the sake of transparency, while I don't think this current situation has anything to do with socialism (except that the liberals and the NDP are more socialist than the conservatives), I'd personally love to see an even more socialist Canada!
I think it'd be cool to sit down with your mom with a cup of coffee and chat for an hour or two right now. Darn that ferry and those mountain ranges!
While explaining the whole system, one commentator on CBC explained the necessity of having the confidence of the house as a means of our own checks and balances for power. I'd never considered it that way before.
I know you're down with a lot of this, but benedictionblogson has a great post called Politics 101 that breaks things down the parliamentary processes, and the rights and responsibilities of the respective parties very well.
From a literacy teacher's perspective:
We've all learned a new word: prorogue - to defer, postpone.
In a sentence: Can we prorogue our essays until the new year?