Paul & Alex Present: Point/Counter-Point

Greetings faithful fan(s) of AWordonFailure,

Today we present the first post using the Paul and Alex joint account. As you may have noticed from our older posts, we disagree on just about everything (including how much pie is too much pie or when is it okay to order a prostitute), so we figured it might be fun, and kinda interesting, to write blog posts in the form of a point/counter-point debate: present two sides of an issue and then let you, the reader, decide if one of us is right - or if we are both totally nuts. At other times we thought it would be interesting to write some blog posts in the form of a conversation, and see if we can reach a consensus, or at least get some deeper analysis on some big issues. (Look for this in the near future!) Send us a comment telling us what you think; comments really do make us happy, further the discussion, and boost our ego.

So without further ado here's our first joint blog post, where we are going to get all hubristic, and pretend to be the governor-general of Canada.

LOL ALWAYS,
P-Diddy and A-Nel.

***

Great White Crisis

Canada is a country normally famous for putting the sap of maple trees on pancakes, saying 'eh' and 'aboot' an awful lot, and generally being pretty, well....boring. And stable. So it's pretty amazing that over the last couple of weeks, the Canadian media has been bandying about terms like 'coup', 'banana republic' and 'Zimbabwe North'. The Prime Minister, or at least a man who could once claim to be prime minister, may now just beat out Sarah Palin and the Australian Rugby League team for the title of BIGGEST FAIL EVER. He, a man who won 20% of the popular vote at the last election, has been burning up the airwaves rambling about plots that would lead to the destruction of Canada. What the hell happened?

It's all explained pretty well in this article. But for those of you who are too lazy to click on the link, here's the 411:
There was an election in Canada on October 14, where the Conservative party (led by Stephen Harper) won the most seats (but not enough to form an majority government). Normally this would mean Harper would be settling down and looking forward to being the PM for at least a while, steering his country through the financial crisis and looking like an awkward jerky robot in photographs. However, the Liberal and New Democrat parties, as well as the separatist Bloc Quebecois, enraged by the hubris of the Conservatives have allied together. This is noteworthy because, together, they control a majority of the seats in Parliament such that they can force a no-confidence motion in the Conservative government, topple it, then form their own hydra-government. Strictly speaking, though, the NDP and the Liberals alone have entered into an agreement to create a coalition government; the Bloc as only formally agreed to oust the Conservatives from power and support the Coalition for at least 1.5 years. (That is, the Coalition would only be made up of NDP and Liberal MPs.)

Okay, now that you've passed Canadian Politiks 101, here's the graduate course: So even though this would be a historical first in Canada. Realize that this isn't a "crazy" or even novel idea: New Zealand, for instance, has had coalition governments before and that pretty lil country hasn't devolved into a Mad Max wasteland. Moreover, it's recently come to light that MPs in past Canadian Parliaments had this same idea -- apparently the Alliance Party (which has now been swallowed up by the Conservative Party) once considered trying to form a coalition government back when the Liberals formed the government.

If it sounds complex, that's cos it kinda is. The result is that Stephen Harper now resembles a broken man, having gone from Prime Minister to 'former' Prime Minister without ever losing an election outright. For New Zealand reader(s), imagine that next month Act and the Maori Party abandon their support for National and decide to get behind a Labour/Greens/Jim Anderton coalition, then ask the Gov-Gen to let them be the new government. That's sort of what has happened here.

In these kind of situations, the Governor-General (GG) of Canada (or for good measure Australia, New Zealand or any of the other Commonwealth countries) has three choices. He or she can: [1] choose to suspend Parliament, basically telling all the MPs to sit in the corner until they can play nice; Or, [2] allow the new coalition to form a government; Or, [3] dissolve Parliament completely and call another elections.

The other day the GG choose to suspend Parliament, effectively throwing Stephen Harper a lifeline. For two reasons, we think that she made a bone-headed and baffling move. Firstly, by suspending Parliament the problem doesn't go away. The opposition seems pretty committed in it's quest to roll the Conservatives, perhaps even more now that Stephen Harper has shown his willingness to hide behind arcane constitutional levers, rather than face his government's impending demise like a grown man. So unless the GG plans to suspend Parliament FOREVER, then she hasn't saved this government, merely unduly postponed the inevitable. After all, the GG will probably end up facing the same choice again in late January when Parliament resumes. Secondly, not only is suspending Parliament useless, it is desperately unprincipled and woefully undemocratic. By suspending Parliament, and letting the Harper government continue without any evidence that the Conservatives still have the confidence of the House of Parliament, the GG, an unelected individual, has strayed dangerously close to the line of picking favourites. Really, the role of the GG is no more than to tick a constitutional box, a figurehead which says 'Yes, there is a government'.

So while we agree that the GG is a muppet, we vehemently disagree on the right way forward for Canada. With our expansive experience in Canadian constitutional affairs (Paul IS a Canadian who fled to NZ and Alex went there once and thought it was neat), we now present our differing views on what the Governor-General SHOULD have done. Let us know who you think is right.

Alex sez - CALL AN ELECTION
I realise, given that Canada just had an election, and that a new election would be Canada's fourth in five years, that I am advocating a position that is difficult, unpopular and some would say damaging to my Canadian street-cred. But just because something is difficult and unpopular, that is not a reason to avoid it if is the right way forward. And I believe it is.

Obviously the Harper government, surviving only due to the good grace and poor decision making of the Governor-General, no longer has any legitimacy in the eyes of the Canadian constitution, and cannot claim to be the constitutionally legitimate leadership of Canada. But my concern is that a coalition, cobbled together out of the disparate elements of the Canadian left and the separatist Bloc, will be something far worse - a government that does not legitimacy in the eyes of the Canadian people.

It is one thing to say that it is the role of the public to elect their representatives to Parliament, and then it is the role of those representatives to form a government, which may take whichever shape those representatives choose. That may fit a formalistic definition of 'voting', but in reality people do not just vote for a person or the party that they represent in a vacuum, but they vote with a wider view as to the shape they would like that government to take. To use a New Zealand example, in 2002 many socially conservative voters, who normally would associate with the National party voted for the small, 'family-values' oriented United Future party. The rationale was that if Labour was to form the Government that year (as looked likely, National were tumbling in the polls) then it was better that the Labour government went into coalition with social conservatives ,rather than the socially liberal Greens.

My point is that this coalition appears to have come from out of left-field, and it is not something that we can claim is in the reasonable contemplation of the ordinary Canadian voter as they made their choice at the ballot box. My guess is that if the only two choices in the election had been 'Conservatives' or 'Liberal + NDP + Bloc Quebecois', then the overall vote for the Conservatives would be much higher, and have allowed them a majority. As it stands, the Canadian people face something completely unexpected, and if the coalition government is allowed to form they face a democratically unpalatable prospect of Stephane Dion, a man who led his party to their worst electoral showing in a century, and who received only 20% of the popular vote, becoming the Prime Minister. At least until May, when the Liberals elect a new leader.

Calling an election will be a ballsy move, that will in all likelihood infuriate the Canadian people, and lead to a disproportionately greater turn-out in the next Parliament for protest parties such as the Greens. But the Canadian people should not be infuriated, they should be pleased that they have a chance to have their say and get a government that they want and expect. If nothing else, it will force Canadian political parties to be clear in explaining who they will work with, and what their coalition demands will be, making sure that a constitutional crisis of this sort never happens again, and that Canadian politics is not about snatching the levers of power, but making sure those levers are being used in a way that is best for ordinary Canadians.

If nothing else, that's a reason for a revote.


Paul sez - INSTALL COALITION GOVERNMENT
Hells ya this prospective coalition government would be a good thing. There are a few reasons why that's true. Let me explain.

For one, a coalition government would mean more stability than any minority government. Because a minority government can fall at any time, things are always kinda on edge whenever Canada has one. The lil pact between the Liberals-NDP coalition and the Bloc entails that there'll be at least 1.5 years of stability.That's what they've formally agreed to. Stability like this is especially desirable in troubled times... like when an economic crisis is going on. The real nightmare would be another election. That kind of instability would be worrisome… I mean, come on, it's only been 7 weeks!! That would be a waste of time and resources when Ottawa needs to be getting stuff done; now, more than ever, Canadians needs a stable and active government. On that point, there's also a degree of moderation that a coalition government would bring. A coalition government won't be able to push through the same sort of crazy unilateral legislation that a 1-party government could. Coalitions create an additional check-and-balance to moderate the actions of the government; that is, this government would need to cater to the policies of both the NDP and the Liberals. Even though this particular coalition government would be left of centre, by having to appease both parties it would be appealing to the sentiments of a wider range of Canadian voters than a government of either party individually. Yay!

Here's another thing to bear in mind: this move by the NDP and Liberals in no way goes against the will of Canadian voters. Here's how the system works: voters elect Parliaments. The elected Members of Parliament, then, form a government. Not the other way around. The voters elect whichever candidate running in their riding will best serve their interests. Nothing about that is changed if the current minority government is replaced with a coalition government; the same elected members still holds the same seats; the same MPs still represent the same riding. It's hard to say that voters vote expecting one party to take office, especially in this case since the last Canadian election was super close. But can we say that voters want whichever party the representative they elect for their riding is a member of to form the government? Sure, but that doesn't change anything. It's the sum of all the ridings in Canada that are important. So the government should be formed by the greatest number of MPs possible that are willing to work together. Traditionally, that's always been 1 party (the party with the most seats). In the current situation, it's the coalition (they, together, control more seats than the Conservatives). We can say that the voters expressed more (implicit) support for a NDP-Liberal coalition government than for a Conservative government. Yay!

And while some of those "boo hiss anti-coalition" naysayers have been postulating that this would be the first step in the break down in Canada (since the Bloc are involved), that's just silly. This Liberal-NDP coalition isn't "anti-Canada"; those wacky Bloc ppl aren't officially part of the coalition, they've just formally agreed to support it. Really, the Bloc is faced with the following choice: which is preferable - a NDP-Liberal coalition government or a Conservative government? Because the Bloc is more left leaning, they see the coalition as the "lesser of the two evils". That's it. No new talk about Quebec separatism because of a possible coalition.

Ultimately, whether or not this coalition is a good or bad things doesn't matter, the precedence of a coalition taking power is of true important. Were this coalition to end up being a 3 stooges act, an election will eventually be called and the people can collectively decide where to go next. But at that stage the Canadian people will have had a taste for something different; they will know what it's like to have a coalition government. This gives them, and the federal parties, more options. That's growth. That's something I can believe in.