The Proposed Coalition Government

First of all, allow me to iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. I don’t feel the need to conjecture about whether or not this will be a good thing or bad thing for Canadians. I don’t consider myself to be nearly informed enough on politics and the issues at hand to make such an interpretation. I would encourage all who read this to consider the same point. I further refuse to be suaded by emotional arguments, that this is a bad thing because I don’t like it. My purpose is to clarify exactly what this situation is and what it isn’t, so people can understand it better before they make a decision about it or try to argue a particular position

Perhaps the most fallacious argument in this whole debate is the democratic nature of it. Those who are opposed to the idea of a coalition government claim that it is not democratic because the elected government is being sidestepped. I want to clarify that there is absolutely nothing un-democratic about this process. The only way such a coalition is possible is because the coalition would represent more Canadians. In Canada, the government is able to pass bills into laws because they have enough members of parliament vote in favour of it. When Canada has a majority government, this means that they have sufficient members within their own party to vote something in. When Canada has a minority government, they need to cooperate with other members of parliament – other parties – to pass bills into law. Thus, when a ruling minority government cannot find a way to cooperate with other members of parliament, they do not have sufficient governing power. When this happens consistently enough, this is what’s called a “Vote of No Confidence”: the rest of the house – the majority of parliament – no longer feel that the governing party can effectively do anything. The bottom line is that anything that the majority of the members of parliament do IS DEMOCRATIC.

The nature of Canada’s government allows such actions to take place. However underhanded or shady you feel such a proposal is, you have to understand that the system of Canadian government allows this very thing. It is the nature of a Westminster system. If you don’t know what this is or how it works, I would encourage you to look into it more. I would further encourage you to refrain from forming an opinion until after such information is gleaned from your research. It is also a mistake to think that we elect our Prime Minster – we do not. We elect area representatives who belong to a particular party. This party chooses who their leader is. We do not get a say. Thus, one of the major faults of the Canadian system is that the Prime Minister could lose in his or her own riding but still be the Prime Minister. Nowhere in this process is there any kind or democratic electing of our Prime Minister. Thus, side-stepping his or her authority can in no way be considered undemocratic. In fact, I would accuse the process by which our Prime Minister comes to power to be undemocratic – but then again, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a true democracy. We elect those into power (our area representatives), but for the duration of their stay, they make decisions on our behalf without having to receive input from those whom they represent. Many do anyways because they feel a responsibility to their area, and because many seek re-election. Rest assured, though, they have the power to exercise their position whatever way they see fit, and barring extreme circumstances, we are powerless to do much about it. Just ask any Canadian who is represented by an MP they did not elect.

Let’s analyze some numbers to put this all into context. National voter turnout was a whopping 59.1%. This means that of all of Canada’s eligible voters, less than two-thirds turned out to have their say. Of this 59.1%, 37.6% voted Conservative, 26.2% voted Liberal, 18.2% NDP, 10% BQ, 6.8% Green, and 1.2% other. This voter percentage is grossly misrepresented by the number of seats each party holds. This is one of the major problems I have with this “first-past-the-post” election system. It is archaic, and truly undemocratic in its very nature – but that’s another story. This means that the Conservative vote actually represents ~22% of the Canadian population. This also means that ~26% of Canadians are represented by the Liberal and NDP parties alone. Call me crazy, but that seems to me that they have more support of Canadians. When you add the BQ and Green percentages (both of whom have voiced their support), you actually have Canadian support of 36.2%. Now, there are some who would argue that 78% of Canadians didn’t vote for a Conservative government and thus make up the majority, but I consider that to be as silly of an argument as saying that a coalition is undemocratic. It is, however, fair to say that a coalition really does represent more Canadians – however distasteful you may find it. As a side note, did you know that almost twice as many Canadians didn’t vote than those who elected a Conservative government? Let’s put proportional representation into context here.

I think one of the most ironic and humorous aspects to this is the ones who are complaining – the majority of which are Conservative supporters – fail to understand that the government that would be ousted by this was the same government who put together this proposal in 2004 to fight against the Liberals. That’s right, Harper is being injured by his own weapon. This is one of those areas where I would encourage anyone who is critical of this proposed coalition to oppose it in principle, not because your favoured government is the target. Would you still criticize this and call it undemocratic if the party you supported was behind it? Think about it. If a Conservative-NDP-Green-BQ coalition government meant ousting the Liberals immediately after the Sponsorship scandal (something that I have yet to forgive the Liberals for), would you still be critical of it? Would you still consider it to be undemocratic?

Another thing that I find incredibly amusing about this is the level of, for lack of better terms, sheer stupidity of Harper and his decision to remove party funding when he had a minority government. I say nothing about the merits of such a decision, only that to question what Harper thought would happen. This reeks of a decision that you would need a majority government to pull off. When you need to cooperate with at least one other party to pass bills, do you really think you can get that cooperation if you want to handicap all other parties? Am I the only one who sees the idiocy – nay, the hubris of such an act?

I think my final criticisms rest on some more minor issues. I shake my head at Harper’s campaign promises of not needing to go into debt, but then hearing a month or so later that we need to go into debt. Couple this with the coalition’s justified claims of inaction in the face of global economic crisis, and contextualize it with this campaign promise being broken and inaction coming from someone whose career is based on economics... I trust the point is self-evident.

Claims of usurpation, undemocratic process, and many other claims are essentially unfounded. Again, I iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. If I had to find criticism for the coalition it would be that I can’t help but see politics being played at an epically sad level. I can’t help but see this coalition as a pathetic grab for power; however, I am not closed-minded to the idea that such a power grab might be necessary. If inaction in the face of global economic crisis is as dangerous as many claim it is, this coalition may be necessary. But, this is one of those area that I consider hindsight to be the only true way of knowing. Therein rests my justification for fence-sitting. I am not supportive of a Conservative government, but I’m not so sure if such extreme measures are warranted. What I will argue, however, is that such extreme measures aren’t unfounded, that and our parliamentary system is established in such a way that a coalition government is allowed. If you want to criticize this coalition, perhaps it would be more correct to criticize a system that allows such a coalition to occur in the first place. The bottom line is if more Canadians really understood the infrastructure and workings of our government, I think they might not use the particular arguments they are using. They reek of misunderstanding the system, and display only their ignorance. It is only to their benefit – and everyone else’s – to further educate themselves on Canadian parliament.