Skip to main content

coailition government true and false

like most canadians, i like to maintain a smug sense of superiority about our knowledge of political issues, particularly in comparison with our neighbours to the south. however, the last few days have made me realise that, when political push comes to shove, we're basically sheep following what we've heard in the news in the last seven days. so here is my humble attempt to address some of the partisan myth-making that has been circulating as a result of the current constitutional confusion.

a majority of canadians chose stephen harper and the conservatives to govern the country- false. of those who voted (59.1% of those eligible), 37.63% voted for the conservative party. this is not a majority by any measure. it is a plurality, which means only that the conservatives got more votes than any of the other parties. this percentage of the vote was not enough to give the conservatives a parliamentary majority, meaning that the other parties combined have more seats than the conservatives, but no single party has as many seats.

coalitions are inherently unstable- depends on what you're comparing them to. they are unquestionably less stable than single party governments with an outright majority. however, they are no more or less stable than minority governments operating without a formal coalition agreement.

a majority of canadians voted against stephane dion- false. no one in canada voted for or against stephane dion except the residents of the st. laurent-cartierville riding. parliamentary systems, unlike presidential ones, involve voting for parties, not leaders. the sad fact that many people allow themselves to believe otherwise, because it's easier than finding out the details of a party's actual platform, doesn't change that. stephane dion is not the issue, except for his own party.

to give the power of government to a group of parties, none of whom were given a mandate to govern, is undemocratic- false. and true. it's false in the sense that, combined, the liberals, new democrats and bloc quebecois actually represent a substantial majority of those who voted. the argument that they didn't run as a coalition is specious. coalitions are formed by parties by determining if they can come to an agreement on major issues to an extent that would allow them to govern and in minority situations, it is to be expected that some of the parties will work together. it's also true, however, that governments that function on a purely "first past the post" basis are inherently undemocratic, because they immediately discount every vote that was not cast for the winner. if the conservatives govern alone, every vote for another party- 62% of those cast- is essentially lost. if the coalition prevails, every vote for the conservatives- the largest single party block of votes- is lost. no one was given a clear-cut mandate and therefore the system dictates that a large group of people lose out. the way to get around this is to change the system. the outcome of the current crisis is irrelevant to the question of democratic representation.

the coalition can't work- false. coalition governments do work and have worked in other countries and in canada. in fact, the conservatives have been governing with a kind of coalition for two years. they have not had (and have not generally sought) the support of the opposition parties, but those parties have given a kind of consent by strategically absenting themselves from parliamentary votes to prevent the government from collapsing.

the inclusion of separatists in government is unprecedented in canada- false. separatist politicians have participated in past governments to a greater extent than the bloc quebecois would under the current coalition agreement. the difference is that they weren't calling themselves separatists. brian mulroney's success in quebec was due in no small measure to his ability to win "soft" separatists over to the progressive conservative party. he even put some of them in cabinet. remember?

and here are a couple of less clear-cut questions...

the coalition represents a power grab by the opposition- maybe. people will interpret the motivations of the opposition as they will, mostly based on their own previously established partisanship. "person on the street" interviews in burlington, a heavily conservative toronto suburb, show a vast majority of people with a vitriolic reaction against the coalition. in the same sort of interview in montreal, where the voters tend to be more left-leaning (and where the conservatives do not hold a single seat), the reaction was more positively disposed towards a multi-party government. the fact is that no one can speak with any authority on the motivations of the politicians involved.

stephen harper needs to resign- probably. the impression being given is that much of the belligerence on the part of the conservatives comes from harper and his unelected staff and that the strange developments of the last few days can be traced back to harper's own truculent style of governing. remove him from the equation and the argument that the conservatives need to go because of their unwillingness to work with the other parties loses much of its resonance. in addition to the fact that the harper-driven economic update was the landmine that set all this off to begin with, his reaction has been blundering, petty, hysterical and ill-informed. whatever the end solution is, it seems unlikely that it can be a positive one with him in the picture.

and now that you've heard my opinion, you might want to check here for a different, but also non-partisan opinion.

Comments

For the record, I live in Ontario and voted Green...so I believe my thoughts on this are pretty unbiased not supporting Liberals, Conservatives, nor NDP.

Harper should have resigned after the election seven weeks ago when he did not deliver a majority for the C's...however, this still feels like a slap in the face to voters who trust the politicians to represent them. Legal or not, this is how we voted and a Coalition slaps of a back door power grab.

Also, something few are thinking about...will this Coalition give more power to Separatists...true, but not in Quebec. Instead in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia where they will alienate those people strongly in favour of the Conservative government. If this Coalition goes through, I expect to see referendum votes on separation (or even becoming the newest member of the USA) at least in Alberta, if not all three, relatively fast.

Popular posts from this blog

so hip it hurts

there aren't too many artists who stand out as being iconically canadian. it's too easy to mistake us for some other people, mostly americans, who are, let's be honest, pretty similar in a lot of ways. [this is the bit where i apologise for avril lavigne, justin bieber and drake.] the guess who/ bachman turner overdrive held sway over an earlier generation, and musicians and those who appreciate technical proficiency will speak of rush like they are gods, but last night the country said goodbye to perhaps the most canadian of canadian bands, the tragically hip.

for those of you not familiar with that name, the hip emerged in the mid-to-late eighties, among a slew of canadian bands [54-40, the northern pikes, the pursuit of happiness, the grapes of wrath] that balanced on the line between mainstream and alternative rock. all of them played accessible guitar-based music with none of the bombast of seventies dinosaurs, but equally with no hint of the drug-fueled anger that w…

shut up

general reaction seems to be that last night's vice presidential debate was close to a draw, with a slight edge going to mike pence [other than among cnn's panel of independent voters, who overwhelmingly chose tim kaine as the winner]. i feel that's an accurate assessment, although it's largely a question of personal preference. pence absolutely projected the stoic, unflappable, unwavering image that many americans [not just republicans, either] seem to like and equate with strength. for my part, i prefer someone who's a little more mercurial, someone who's able to gets excited about ideas and who's able to expand on them, not just repeat talking points.

so, from my point of view, both vice presidential candidates were pretty disappointing. i found that kaine had a fantastic command of facts and history- he knew pence's voting record better than pence knew his and possibly better than pence knew his own. his opening answers were so smoothly delivered i…

mental health mondays :: parabnormal?

for north america and parts of europe, halloween marked the apex of spooky events, where the veil between the worlds of the living and the dead was at its most diaphanous. but if you're a very traditional roman catholic, you'll know that the 31 of october is merely the beginning, and that the entire month that follows is dedicated to remembering and praying for the dead, specifically for those whose souls are trapped in purgatory. if you listen to dante, purgatory isn't especially pleasant. sure, there's the possibility that you'll end up working off your debt to celestial society, but until then, you get to endure things like having your goddamned eyes sewn shut with iron wire. [much like condo developments, it gets better the higher the floor you live on.]

however, the more common view of purgatory among catholics is that the souls relegated there can't do anything to help themselves, and are reliant on the prayers of their living relatives and loved ones to …