First off a confession: I spend way too much time reading newspapers online and political blogs. I’m home all day, so whenever Little Dude is sleeping or playing contentedly by himself, I’m usually scanning for new posts. It’s a bit of an addiction. If I put just some of that time into hockey blogs, I might not have had to rename my fantasy hockey team “Last Place.”
In any event, here I sat down at the computer this morning, having hashed out in my own mind what I think about this current business in Ottawa, and the Globe and Mail put my exact thoughts in this morning’s really really long editorial. Anyway, it’s great. Go read it. But since you’re here already, here are my own words:
For one thing, everyone needs to take a deep breath and remember grade ten social studies. Or, at the very least, remember what your ballot looked like when you voted six weeks ago. I know we all make our decision based on things like national party platforms and leaders, but the fact is we elect directly our riding’s member of parliament. A government is formed, based on the make-up of that parliament. But the House is the primary thing. The government cannot operate without the confidence of the House. If the largest party cannot maintain that confidence, it’s perfectly legitimate for the governor-general to ask if the leader of the opposition is able. And I know that conservatives understand this because (a) conservative intellectual heroes like Burke and Bagehot wrote about the Westminster system and its virtues at some length, and (b) because Stephen Harper made exactly that point four years ago when Paul Martin led a minority government. I realize politicians have short memories on this kind of thing, but there’s no reason for the rest of us to fall for it.
Secondly, all systems of government are designed to broker compromise between competing interests. There seem to be two main ways that could have worked and hasn’t over the past three years. Harper could have governed by appealing to centrist opposition MPs in the House — he needs ten out of 165 to vote with him on money bills (or twenty to stay home), they’re most likely to be Liberals, and party discipline cannot possibly be strong in that caucus. Or he could have convinced centrist voters to elect a majority of Conservative MPs in the general election. Basically: either win over at least part of the opposing parties or shift the public discourse. Great politicians do both, successful politicans do at least one. Stephen Harper has done neither, he’s had five years to try, and it should have been easy given the state of the Liberal party.
This is my point: Stephen Harper wants a fundamental realignment of politics, so he can build a permanent Conservative majority? Good for him. It drives me crazy that people get offended by the very idea. But on the other hand, we have a pretty robust system for getting reasonable governance out of ambitious and strong-willed politicians. The system makes it in their interest to compromise judiciously, to respect alternative viewpoints, to win broad public acceptance for their philosophy. Stephen Harper can’t or won’t do it, and that’s why despite being dealt the best hand for a Conservative leader in twenty years — first AdScam, then Dion and a totally disoriented Liberal party — he hasn’t won a majority government in three tries.
So this is what bothers me: it’s just the political incompetence. Yeah, I’m of the liberal persuasion, but I honestly don’t care if we get prudent and responsible government from the Liberal party or from the Conservative party. In fact, it seems prudent to replace one with the other every once in a while. Why shouldn’t Harper have a political agenda? But it maddens me that he’s incapable of pursuing it without being petty and small, and that even in his petty and small gestures, he’s not taking the long view.
And that said, speaking of the long view, this coalition in the works just seems like a horror show. Sure, it would be constitutionally legitimate, and there’s precendent. It may even better reflect the will of 62% of the electorate than a Conservative government unwilling to earn the confidence of the House. But politically, I just don’t see how it wouldn’t be a disaster. There must be a way for the Liberals and the Tories to save face here. It may be as the Globe suggests; it may not. I certainly hope it gets found.
