A Deceptive Democracy: "First Do No Harm"

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I'm continuing to share bits and pieces from the 2009 book: Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, a compilation of views from experts in Canada on the 2008 coalition and Harper's first damaging prorogation.

And since he continues to threaten national unity with his "separatist" nonsense, it's important to educate the public on the way that our Parliamentary system is supposed to work.

One of the experts to present their views, is Andrew Heard, Associate Professor in the Political Science Dept. at Simon Fraser University. He discusses the constitutionality of the prorogation and suggests that the Governor General should adhere to the principle of "first do no harm".

I certainly don't envy her position at the time, but should she have been put in that position in the first place? Was Stephen Harper right to ask her prorogue, when he had clearly lost the confidence of the House? Heard doesn't think so.

The governor general exists as an integral fail-safe mechanism for our parliamentary system of government. Every major parliamentary system around the world continues to include a separate position of head of state, because an independent official is needed on rare occasions to protect the proper functioning of Parliament and cabinet. The powers of the governor general have been likened to a fire extinguisher to put out constitutional fires. (1)

But there was no question on the constitutionality of the coalition. Nor was there any question of protecting a prime minister's job when he lost the confidence of the House. This "crisis" was made in Harperland.

Responsible Government, Huh?

The next important question, therefore, is whether Stephen Harper's advice to suspend Parliament was constitutional. Even among those constitutional authorities who supported the governor general's prorogation of Parliament, many question the propriety of the prime minister's decision to prorogue Parliament rather than face the vote of confidence on 8 December. The problem is that his actions undermine the most fundamental principle of our parliamentary system of government: that the government of the day must win and maintain the confidence of a majority of the elected members of Parliament. This principle is known as responsible government, and it ensures that the executive branch of government is accountable to those directly elected by the citizens. (2)

We don't elect prime ministers in Canada, nor do we elect governments. We only elect legislators. In our first past the post system, the leader of the party with the most seats is then named prime minister, and he is invited to form a government. Conventional wisdom being that he has the support of the electorate.

But Stephen Harper lost that support, meaning that more than 60% of Canadians, through their elected officials, wanted his government removed.

On the same day that Harper met with the governor general, a petition was delivered to her that had been signed by 161 opposition MPs in which they stated their intention to vote non-confidence in the Conservative government and to support an alternative government. (2)

In a Parliamentary democracy those are the voices she should have listened to. The majority in the House who presented their own solution to the "crisis". When the GG allowed Stephen Harper to prorogue, she silenced the majority of the electorate.

But again, should she have ever been put in the position of taking away our democratic rights?

The prime minister's decision to suspend Parliament was unconstitutional on several levels. First of all, he intended to prevent Parliament from expressing its non-confidence in his government and its support for an alternative government. This is an unprecedented manoeuvre among modern established democracies. It is a tactic that is normally condemned by Western governments when employed by a struggling Third World regime threatened with a legislative revolt. (2)

And though he continued to refer to the proposed coalition as a "coup", it was no such thing. The opposition were simply following the letter of our Constitution, whereas Stephen Harper was attempting to rewrite it.

If he loses the confidence of the House again, we should be prepared for anything. This man will not give up power easily. But this time we must demand that we have a say in the matter.

Previous:

1. Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

2. Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

3. Harper From Pugnacious to Dangerous

4. A Confidence Game

5. On His Knees and Out of His Head

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Pg. 48

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, 2009, Pg. 53-54

A Deceptive Democracy: On His Knees and Out of His Head

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Another chapter of the book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, was written by Ned Franks, who taught at Queen's University for over thirty-five years in the Department of Political Studies, and is an expert in Parliamentary procedure.

He sought to answer the question: "did the Governor General make the right decision" when she allowed Stephen Harper to close down Parliament in 2008, to avoid facing a confidence vote that would have assuredly exiled him to opposition.

Under the circumstances, she probably made the only decision she could have at the time, and the real threat to democracy was the fact that Stephen Harper asked for it in the first place. It set a dangerous precedence.

When Harper presented his own coalition, that included the full support of both the NDP and Bloc, to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, she says in her book Heart Matters, that Paul Martin came to her requesting that she step in, dissolve parliament and call another election. But she refused. (1)

Instead she told him to fix it and he did. Besides, by then Harper's coalition was crumbling, as Jack Layton had a change of heart, and backed out.

Adrienne Clarkson actually wrote the forward for Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, and she says that: "In November/ December 2008 there was an enormous interest in the functioning of our political system accompanied by an abysmal lack of knowledge about the system. The idea that we were in crisis is something that I personally take with a grain of salt. Just because a resolution has to be found does not mean that the situation is a crisis." (2)

The only threat (crisis) was Stephen Harper losing his job, and what he did to keep it was not only undemocratic but reprehensible.

It's important to revisit this now, because the Harper government is trying to replicate that "crisis" by once again presenting a coalition as a "threat".

But Back to 2008 and the Winter of Our Discontent

It is well established that the governor general should not allow a prime minister to use dissolution of a Parliament to escape facing a vote of confidence in the House, especially when the session is new (and Parliament had sat for only thirteen days in the first session of the 40th Parliament when Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested prorogation of the governor general to avoid a vote of confidence the following Monday). The dissolution precedent dictates that the governor general should reject a prime minister's advice to prorogue a session when a viable alternative government exists. The Liberal Party, New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Bloc Quebecois had made a public commitment to support a Liberal-NDP coalition government for at least a year and a half. Following this precedent, the governor general should have refused Harper's advice to prorogue. (3)

Those are the words of Ned Franks, but while he suggests that precedence should have prompted the GG to refuse Stephen Harper, reality dictated that that may have been a mistake.

As he delves into the political climate at the time of the potential removal of the Harper government from power in 2008, he concludes that the Governor General at the time made the right decision. He does not base it on any notion that Harper was right for the country, but on the inevitable outcome if the coalition had been allowed to form a government.

Harper was not a strong leader, but he had the most money behind him and was able to launch the most effective public relations campaign. And that campaign was filled with, as Franks reminds us, "misrepresentations and half-truths", including the suggestion that the electorate had given him a stronger mandate. The Conservative vote count was down by almost 200,000. Only vote-splitting and apathy (the lowest voter turn out in our history) gave him more seats. So he was not the "choice of the electorate", only the choice of roughly 1/3 of those who bothered to cast a ballot.

This means that more than 60% of active voters, voted against his party.

But because the destruction of Stephane Dion had been so complete, a Dion led government was not palpable to most Canadians, including many Liberals. And we know what would have happened. The Conservatives in opposition, with their corporate sponsors, would have made it impossible for anyone else to govern.

And a country already fragile form the economic crisis, would have surely been in serious trouble. Sadly, this would not concern Harper at all. He is motivated by hatred and contempt and hates to lose.

However, I think they might be making a mistake dredging up the "coalition" nonsense now, although it may be all they have left. As David Climenhaga says: "this scare story is certain to be the No. 1 talking point of the scorched earth federal Conservative election campaign that's coming soon, and Harper and Flaherty, not to mention all the other little Tories, will be stickin' to it."

The biggest problem with the 2008 coalition was the "Dion factor". But despite similar never ending attack ads, Michael Ignatieff is still standing. And with the Harperites continually calling this the "Ignatieff coalition", that, while imaginary, would mean he headed up a government representing 2/3 of Canadians, they might actually be campaigning for him.

Any marketing person will tell you that it's all about name recognition.

And as the Harper government's corruption, and unheard of abuse of tax dollars for self promotion, continue to dominate the news, they might just be presenting voters with the choice between Harper and a majority headed by Michael Ignatieff, who they have helped to make a household name.

Previous:

1. Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

2. Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

3. Harper From Pugnacious to Dangerous

4. A Confidence Game

Sources:

1. Heart Matters: A Memoir, By Adrienne Clarkson, Viking Press, 2006, ISBN: 10-978-0-670-06546-3

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Forward

3. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, 2009, Pg. 33

A Deceptive Democracy: Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

There is a 2009 book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, edited by Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, that focuses on a country in crisis.

And of course that country in crisis is Canada, now in the grips of a man who will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

The book focuses on the 2008 coalition and the actions of the Harper government, but it also speaks of a broader issue. An ill informed public so easily led to believe that there was a national emergency, when in fact the only thing happening was democracy in action.

Because what took place at the end of 2008 was not a "coup" or a "conspiracy".

And it was not a government seeking compromise, but a rehearsed drama performed to instill fear into an audience of onlookers. A nation that no longer participated, but were happy to simply watch. And even more alarming was that the whole performance was underwritten by a media who felt that drama sold more papers, than fact.

James Travers suggests that the new Governor General must assume the role of teacher.

Canada has a new Governor General and an old problem. In replacing Michaelle Jean, David Johnston, a lawyer and teacher, inherits a Prime Minister and country in desperate need of a civics lesson. (1)

I agree that the public needs a lesson, but Stephen Harper knew exactly what he was doing. He knew it because he had done the same thing four years earlier. He knew how coalitions worked and why at times they became necessary.

But he allowed his arrogance and visceral hatred for political opponents to take over, and the only thing that mattered was power and the refusal to accept that he could lose.

Harper told Conservatives at their annual Christmas party: 'We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power. My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."' The media pointed out that Harper himself, in 2004, with a minority Liberal government at risk of being defeated in the Commons, had sent a joint letter with Layton and Duceppe to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to 'consider all your options' if the government fell on a confidence vote. Their letter had said: 'We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation.' (2)

We also learn from Lawrence Martin's new book: Harperland, that he was prepared to even go the Queen to plead his case. He was that desperate.

As the crisis roiled, John Baird, then as now Stephen Harper’s go-to guy, revealed plans revolutionary enough to rock Canada’s foundations. Defending Parliament’s suspension, Baird said, “I think what we want to do is basically take a time out and go over the heads of the members of Parliament, go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people.”

Parsed to its essence, a ruling party then accusing “Liberals, socialists and separatists” of overthrowing the government was contemplating what sounds dangerously close to a coup. If Jean refused to find in the Prime Minister’s favour, Conservatives were prepared to ride roughshod over Parliament’s will and the Governor General’s decision. (1)

That's what I find frightening. Would he have resorted to military rule if the Queen, as she would most certainly have done, refused to step in? He turned Toronto into a militarized zone during the G-20. This man is clearly capable of anything.

In November of 2008, the opposition had outsmarted him, and were able to use legal means to do so. And backed into a corner, frothing at the mouth and eyes flashing red, he did the only thing left . He lied. And he lied big. And every lie necessitated another lie, until it completely overwhelmed him, and us.

By Tuesday, 2 December, the government was indicating that prorogation would be the route it would follow. The exchange that day between Harper and Dion in Parliament's Question Period was explosive, with the prime minister focusing on the inclusion of the sovereigntist Bloc in the coalition pact and at one point accusing Dion of removing the Canadian flags from the room before signing the accord with Layton and Duceppe. Thus, to a political and constitutional uproar, the prime minister now added a third element: national unity. (News organizations took several photographs that clearly showed there were two Canadian flags, as well as the flags from all the provinces, directly behind the leaders as they read their statements — along with a third, separate Canadian flag behind the table where they signed.) (2)

And even when Gilles Duceppe produced both the letter that Harper had given him in 2004, that clearly showed he intended to make Duceppe a full partner in the Coalition, and another from 2000, when Stockwell Day presented the Bloc leader with the same proposal, the Harper team denied it. Cries of "Separatists" and "Socialists" drowned out intelligent debate.

It's important to review what took place now because as Travers points out:

First Conservatives denied considering an appeal to the Queen if Jean had refused to padlock Parliament two years ago. Then, barely pausing to regain their hyperbole, Harperites inflated the specter of a coalition seizing control after the coming election. The denials are credible; the fear-mongering irresponsible.

After his first success with suspending democracy, Stephen Harper has made it his modus operandi, with another self-serving prorogation and the refusal to respect the supremacy of Parliament in dealing with the Afghan detainee issue.

And regardless of how you feel about the dynamics of the coalition, remember there would not have been pork barrelling, photo-ops, enormous amounts of cash given to exclusive religious schools, 50 million dollars going to signs or almost 100 million to self serving ads. There was no need.

The drama would have closed opening night, saving us all two years of bad acting.

Previous: A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

Sources:

1. New GG must teach Harper how Canada works, By James Travers, Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9, Pg. 13-14

A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Reading the comments sections a the end of online articles, there are many loyal Harper supporters who are suggesting that all that their hero has to do is scare people with the notion of a coalition government, and he will get his long sought after majority.

It's sad really, given that the 2008 coalition in itself was not frightening, so much as confusing, as squeals of "high treason" and "coup" hit a population with a knowledge deficit of Parliamentary procedure, right between the eyes.

And yet coalition building, as Lawrence LeDuc reminds us, "lies at the very heart of democratic politics." (1) In fact Stephen Harper and his former aide, Tom Flanagan, were well aware of this.

In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." (2)

"An alliance with the Bloc Québécois would not be out of place." So why was an NDP/Liberal coalition with the support of the Bloc on confidence motions only, "undemocratic"?

It's important to revisit this now because the Harper government, as unbelievable as it sounds, is once again raising the issue, in an attempt to paint themselves as perpetual victims. Nonsense.

Stephen Harper created the crisis that initiated the coalition, and many Canadians liked the idea. Graham White called it "The possibility of real Parliamentary change without abandoning the principles of responsible government that have long served Canada well." (1)

Michaëlle Jean has only recently come forward with the reasons for her decision to grant Stephen Harper his prorogation. Under the circumstances she probably made the only decision she could at the time. But she brings up an important point:

Jean said she saw a positive result from that December 2008 episode: the whole prorogation crisis prompted a national discussion and, as a result, led Canadians to learn more about their democracy. (3)

It did get Canadians talking and learning. And we are now, hopefully, a bit more aware of just how democratic a coalition would have been.



We've also been able to inform Canadians that Stephen Harper himself attempted a similar coalition in 2004 and Stockwell Day in 2000.

Of course Ms Jean doesn't explain why she granted his second prorogation, that was the most egregious attack on our democracy in modern history. And to think that it was done with just a phone call.

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9

2. One Canada or 10 Canadas? Harper's goal to create autonomous regions out of the provinces is a step back to colonial times, By Sinclair Stevens, Toronto Star, April 25, 2008

3. Gov. Gen. Jean explains 2008 prorogation: Jean breaks her silence on decision to grant Harper's prorogation request, Canadian Press, September 29, 2010