Canada’s Liberal coup
Will a center-left coalition unseat the Conservatives?
Canadian Governor General Michaelle Jean, who must decide if the coalition can govern
(AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky)
What happened
Canada’s center-left Liberal Party agreed to form a governing coalition with the leftist New Democrats and the cooperation of the separatist Bloc Québécois, two months after Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won reelection, with a plurality of votes, in national elections. If Canada’s Governor General agrees, the coalition could unseat Harper’s minority government Dec. 8. (The Toronto Star)
What the commentators said
This appears to be “something of an electoral coup,” said Patrick Edaburn in The Moderate Voice. And as “it could smack of overturning the will of the voters,” the Liberals should tread carefully in their bid to create Canada’s first-ever coalition government.
“This is hardly some sort of coup,” said Michael Stickings in The Reaction. The Conservatives only won 38 percent of the vote, and “if the three opposition parties think they can govern together,” well, “they should be allowed to do so.” The biggest obstacle is the disastrous lame duck Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, the interim prime minister under the deal—Liberals won’t elect a new leader until May.
With Canada’s economic problems, this is “no time for political games or experiments,” said The Globe and Mail in an editorial. The claims that this is a “coup d’état” are “silly"—it is bad politics, and the Liberals should quash the deal. If they don’t, and they won’t, then the Conservatives should defuse it by replacing Harper—it was his “horrendous miscalculations” and “hyper-partisan” economic “machinations” that pushed the Liberals to act.
There is another way to “get us all out of this mess,” said Andrew Coyne in Macleans online. The Governor General could “just say no.” Instead of allowing this “unstable and potentially destructive coalition,” she could refuse Harper’s resignation and “send him back to Parliament, with instructions to find a consensus on his economic plan.”
Show: Oldest | Newest
12 Comments
Posted by thomas, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 7:34 am steven harper has to go
Posted by C.M. Slothouber, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 7:54 am Obviously if the combined MPs of the opposition parties can sit in a room long enough to hammer out a way to make Parliament work, we need to take it. The opposition parties form the majority of seats in the October election. Let's get their plan enacted.
Posted by allderblob, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 10:34 am To give Andrew Coyne the final say in your summary leaves a bad taste in this reader's mouth. Coyne, after all, is hardly unbiased, insofar as he has been a mouthpiece for the conservative agenda in Canada for years. His logic is flawed in any case, because if the Governor General refused a request by the Prime Minister, protocol dictates he then resign. If she rejects his resignation, he must resign. We could keep doing this for a couple months I guess, but it doesn't solve anything. The coalition alternative is a more reasonable solution. If it's "unstable and potentially destructive," surely that's better than the unstable and demonstrably destructive force that's in power at the moment--the Stephen Harper Conservatives.
Posted by Jesica, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 10:51 am so let me get this straight, in Canada if the losing parties ban together they can oust a party that was elected that they don't like??? then tell me the difference between a Canadian Leftie and a Commie, 'cause i'm not seeing one.
Posted by Aaron, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 11:03 am allderblob's position is so typically liberal it's silly: Attack the rule of law when you don't like it (Governor General makes a ruling) and come up with some inane call to another nebulous "authority" ("protocol" - bah) in the hopes that the sheeple aren't listening. And finally, lob a personal attack at the other side that is unprovable and panders to fear. You, my friend, should be on one of the US mainstream media TV channels. You studied your Stalinism quite well.
Posted by John, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:14 pm Here's how it works in summary: Canadians do not elect a Prime Minister or President. They elect Members of Parliament from ridings around the country. The Party winning the most seats is asked by the Governor General (the Crown's representative) to form a government. The Canadian electorate gave a larger plurality of seats to the Conservatives, but no one party has a majority of seats. Since the Conservatives did not secure a partner to form a majority coalition, it has formed a minority government needing the assent of at least some M.P.s from other parties to govern. It is a particularly unstable government and most would think that the P.M. would tread carefully so as not to prompt a motion of non-confidence. P.M.s serve only with the confidence of Parliament which is the sole basis for its legitimacy. Mr. Harper ignored that advice and now has apparently lost the already weak confidence of the other three parties, which together comprise a clear majority. Of course, a coalition government (which apparently has never ruled Canada except as a one-time all-party government of national unity) can also be unstable and many think the disparate interests of the three parties in this one make it especially so. There are other dynamics that make this move by the Opposition especially fascinating as well. However, Canadians just had an election and are not interested in having another one immediately. At this point, the next move is up to Mr. Harper and then the Governor General. Stay tuned.
Posted by MissaA, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:15 pm Jesica - No one is really being ousted. Everyone member of parliament is a winner of the last election. Members of parliament are supposed to vote in the interests of their constituents. In order for the government to get anything done, at least 51% of the House has to be in favour of it's legislative agenda. That is not the case. Since we just had an election, the only viable solution is for MPs to organize behind an agenda that they can support. This is the majority of elected representatives acting in the interests of the majority of voters, whom they represent.
Posted by MissaA, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:21 pm John - I would question the extent to which the coalition would be as unstable as some commentators think. The opposition parties have a written agreement to work together for at least a period of time. There's no reason that each of the opposition would not desperately try to make this work.
Posted by Ali Hassan, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 4:37 pm Are you all unfamiliar with the Parliamentary tradition which governs Canada? If a Coalition Government is sufficiently large to take power from a Government that won with a plurality vote, that means that the votes of MORE Canadians is being counted in the makeup of the Governing Party. Please relish the traditions of Canadian PARLIAMENTARY democracy, or move South.
Posted by jazbo, Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 9:12 am Whatever. If Candians want to destroy their economy by installing a useless puppet it will only benefit the US by decreasing Candian competitiveness. Please go for it. Thanks ;-)
Posted by duncan stuart, Thursday, December 4, 2008, 1:35 pm People are talking about commies? Oh puh-lease! Perhaps some Americans can't get their heads around parliamentary democracy where coalitions can form between minority parties - in the US everyone is stuck with two party "us and them" system which can be pretty binary. Pkenty of of European nations and other western nations have a system similar to Canada's, and it works really well. What it requires are maturity, co-operation and a shared sense of vision. By and large, parliaments are amde up of fairly reasonable people - when it gets down to it - and a coalition may be a far better way of reflecting the diverse electorate than a winner takes all solution. Harper was supported by just 38% of Canadians. A coalition partnership has the potential of reflecting 62% of canadians. That's a much bigger plurality than Obama achieved with his convincing 54% share. Go Canada!
Posted by John, Thursday, December 4, 2008, 2:17 pm Well, the other shoe just fell and it's a bit of a shocker. P.M. Harper facing a non confidence vote on Monday asked the Governor General to prorogue (i.e.: end this session of) Parliament. And she did it. Next step? The convening of Parliament in late January for the tabling of the Budget, a vote on which is by law and practice automatically a confidence vote.
Post a Comment