Categories: Potter Gold

The Harper Doctrine

I’m trying to piece together Harper’s theory of democratic legitimacy in a minority situation…

by Andrew Potter on Thursday, December 4, 2008 2:36pm - 75 Comments

I’m trying to piece together Harper’s theory of democratic legitimacy in a minority situation in Canada, given the existence of the Bloc Quebecois.

Here is what we know:

1. Harper has, in the past, relied solely on the support of the Bloc Quebecois to keep his government afloat.
2. Harper has spent the last week decrying the role of the Bloc in supporting the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition.
3. In his speech last night, he made it clear that he considers a coalition supported by the Bloc to be undemocratic. He said “Canada’s government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party.” He also said that “the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen.”
4. Today outside Rideau Hall, he said, in response to questions, that he thinks it is vital that the government be supported by the federalist parties in the Commons, that it should not rely on support from a party whose only interest is that of Quebecers, not of Canada as a whole.

It is hard to make all of this fit together as a coherent account of what constitutes democratic legitimacy in Canada right now, but here are a few possible suggestions for the principle that Harper sees as at work here:

A. It is illegitimate for a government to survive a confidence vote with the support of only the Bloc.

This puts 1 at odds with 2,3, and 4, in which case we can conclude that the Prime Minister is either being inconsistent or has simply changed his mind.

B. It is ok for the government to rely on the Bloc for occasional support, esp. when the other opposition parties are voting against the government on a confidence motion, but it is not acceptable to be forced to rely on Bloc support for every confidence vote.

This theory would square 1 and 2 above, though the cost is making a distinction without a difference.

C. The Bloc support of the coalition is illegitimate because it contradicts a promise the opposition parties made during the election.

This would make 1-4 hang together, but it is undermined by the fact that Harper has broken many election promises himself. In which case, his principle could be something like, “It is ok to break an election promise except a promise not to be supported by the Bloc in a coalition,” which achieves consistency at the expense of being extremely ad hoc and arbitrary.

D. During an economic crisis, it is imperative for the government to be supported by national parties that want to serve the national interest.

The Bloc Quebecois, by definition, is only concerned with the interest of Quebecers, which will make it hard, if not impossible, for the coalition to push through a stimulus plan that serves all Canadians. This principle also helps bring consistency to 1-4 above, although it is hard to see why it should be restricted only to times of economic crisis. Everything that parliament does should be focused on serving the national interest, and it is hard to see why it would ever be legitimate for the government to survive only with the support of the Bloc.

In the end, I think that Harper has achieved yet another tactical victory, but has delivered a significant hostage to fortune. Assume when parliament resumes in January that two things are the case: That the economic crisis continues, and the NDP and Liberals intend to vote against the budget. What if, then, the Bloc could be persuaded to support the budget? On what grounds, by Harper’s own lights, could the government legitimately survive? I don’t see how he could, in good conscience, accept the Bloc’s support.

My best, most charitable reading of Harper’s new position on the role of the Bloc in parliament is that Harper has essentially rejected the Bloc as a source of legitimate support for the government. That is, he is now committed to surviving in power with, and only with, the support of either the Liberals, the NDP, or both.

Which is another way of saying that Harper has now pledged that Canada shall only be governed by a coalition of federalist parties. Let us call this principle, “The Harper Doctrine.”

Which means that the NDP now has a colossal amount of bargaining power. I wonder what cabinet position Mr. Layton will be offered.

Tags: The Madness

More by Andrew Potter

David

This puts 1 at odds with 2,3, and 4, in which case we can conclude that the Prime Minister is either being inconsistent or has simply changed his mind.

Or both! He’s inconsistent about being inconsistent. He’s meta-inconsistent.
sf

The word “support” is key.

He can easily accept the Bloq’s support. He can write a budget. If the Bloc supports it, then he moves on. Just like many times before.

This is a heck of a lot different that a “permanent consultative mechanism” which means the Bloc is a part of the government. That would mean, that behind the scenes, the bloc are consulted to draft legislation, and can change or veto legislation, long before it ever reaches the House of Commons. You could also be sure, give an consulative mechanism, that key desires from the Bloc are being incorporated into the legislation, some of which may run contrary to the interests of federalists. That is the key difference.
Sisyphus

All rumoured indications are that Layton would not be given an economic portfolio. Not to be trusted with the family purse, I guess. His household budget must be a real mess. Anybody know ?

In any case, unless his own party does something about Harper it all doesn’t matter. Prepare for six weeks of shitstorm.
T. Thwim

Good grief, Mr. Potter. You’re making this much more complex than it is.

The real rule is simply: It’s Okay If You’re A Conservative.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Good luck trying to figure out what Harper believes, Andrew, better you than me that’s for sure. I was quite excited when Harper first took power a few years ago because I thought we were finally getting a proper conservative for once. My hopes were quickly dashed when he decided the best strategy was to turn Cons into Libs-lite.

I agree with sf’s analysis on BQ support and Harper but I think it’s pretty thin gruel however you look at it.
David

L. Thwim, you’re on the right track, but it’s “It’s okay if I do it”.

My toddlers have the same view of the world, interestingly enough.
Sunny12

Layton himself would be fine with an economic portfolio, as much as anyone else. There is a continuing myth that the NDP cannot manage money. In fact the NDP govt in Saskatchewan was one of the first to bring in a balanced budget in the 1990s. And many Tory government, both provincially and federally, have run up quite high deficits and debts, but everyone continues to think the Tories/neo cons are fiscally conservative (like George Bush, ha, ha) and New Democrats love to tax and spend.
kody

The divergence in world view between every day Canadians and the leftist, elitist media, has never been greater.

It’s like it’s the Soviet Union. Everywhere I went over the last two days people of all stripes were livid at the opposition and viewed this as an unequivocal power grab. Political conversations among people I’ve never heard speak politics before. All thought it rediculous to bring down a government in an economic crises just weeks after they took power.

The media, which is perfectly aligned with their partners on the left coalition, are completely deaf to this.

To them there are two realities: 1) a conservative government that has been ever increasing in power over the last eight years, and 2) the belief that they must be removed from power at all costs.
Stephen B

Harper must have known that he was risking Quebec votes but figured this was his strongest argument against the legitimacy of the coalition, whether by gut feeling or polling.

I wonder if it’s really a big mistake to dramatize the “illegitimacy” of the Bloc. People say it amounts to burning Quebec bridges, but what he really wants to do is conciliate soft nationalists while claiming a vote for the Bloc is wasted because they’ll never be in power. Are his recent tactics really totally inconsistent with this?
MarkCh

Maybe the way to think about it is not to have a binary “legitimate/illegitimate” distinction, but instead to have something like “legitimacy points”. Harper’s speech last night listed various grounds for giving or denying legitimacy points, and concluded that the coalition’s proposal had way too few legitimacy points to be acceptably legitimate. The amount of legitimacy required is an open item for debate or argument. While this is an imprecise, theory, I think it represents the current debate well.

The reason that there is so much disagreement is partly that people have different legitimacy thresholds, and partly that many people seem to award legitimacy points just for getting rid of Harper.
Austin So

Hey T. Thwim, I think that’s even too complex:

The Harper Doctrine = Do whatever and say whatever so’s I can be King of the Castle.

Austin
kody

This place is increasingly looking like a Libblogger site – though not just the garden variety, but the most virulent kind that fails to take any position, any utterance, any reason, given by the conservatives on any matter whatsoever as having a scentilla of legitimacy.
David

The real rule is simply: It’s Okay If You’re A Conservative.

Except that Stephen Harper is now heading Canada’s New Liberal Government.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

The only view that makes all of these consistent is: “If it’s good for me then it’s okay.” THAT is the Harper Doctrine.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

David,, T Thwim et al

Who wrote:

“There is a great contrast between the tolerance of Quebec society and the intolerance of the secessionist option … That is why Quebec secession is a project which favours exclusion, and would breed intolerance and division among communities that are now living in harmony.”

“In the past, as much as Liberals may have disagreed with the Conservatives and the NDP, at least we knew that we shared a common belief in Canada. Today, with the regionalist parties (like the Bloc) this is not the case. We need many leaders, not just Liberals, who will stand up again for our common Canadian values.”

“We are a federation threatened with break-up, and faced with a separatist ideology which promotes suspicion, divisions and envy between citizens. When one group of MPs arrives in Ottawa with the sole mandate of promoting the interests of their own region, this encourages other regions to elect MPs who in turn promote only their interests, and we lose any sense of a national opposition committed to the good of Canada as a whole.”

Why, I think it was Stephane Dion. Has he been saying anything like that in the past week or two?

All pols are out to win elections and will say/do anything to achieve their goals and they don’t care what they were saying last week, month or year. It isn’t only a Conservative phenomenon.
kody

I wonder what the board of directors, and more importantly the shareholders who surely must come from a wide spectrum of Canada and who also must surely appreciate that their audience base should also be that wide spectrum (as opposed to say a tiny radical fringe on the left),

thinks of their assets largely being untilized as a forum for dogmatic, one-sided, and intolerant to other views information dissemination.

Perhaps if the shareholders of the NYT had been a bit more proactive, they wouldn’t have been reduced to junk bond status.

Here’s hoping balance wins the day.

Until then, onward with the rabid Harper bashing.
A Tandon

Mr. Potter, I don’t know whether you’re merely being facetious or haven’t read the terms of the agreement. Harper has not offered to consult with the Bloc where they would have clear say in the governing of this country. The Libs/NDP did, and that’s what many Canadians are recoiling at.

You might have noticed there were three members at the table during the press conference on the coalition agreement, not two. What was Duceppe there for, if he will only be called upon to support the agreement, and not moderate it. He didn’t want any seats at the cabinet, because he has complete and undiluted control to veto any decisions made by the coalition. Do you seriously think that an 18 month peace agreement with the Bloc comes without a price. What in Dion’s background would lead you to suggest that he could have gotten the upper hand in negociating with Duceppe.

So the answer to your rambling: The Bloc can provide support or not to the Con budget, but they will not have had a hand in writing it. I believe that that is the extent to which Canadians are willing to tolerate the Bloc.
andy j

I don’t know if there’s an “official” definition of “national interest” out there, but my own definition of “national interest” includes the interests of Quebec.
TJ Cook

jwl quotes Dion: ““We are a federation threatened with break-up, and faced with a separatist ideology which promotes suspicion, divisions and envy between citizens.”

Amazing – since the unification of the right wing, they’ve been far and away the biggest drivers of suspicion, divisions and envy between Canadians.

Quebec nationalism has been quiescent for years. But look at the divisive force that currently occupies the PMO and its effect on the populace.
sf

jwl: “My hopes were quickly dashed when he decided the best strategy was to turn Cons into Libs-lite”

If you think that Harper could have governed with a true conservative agenda, then what explains the fact that the opposition went berserk with a fiscal update that:
-contained a removal of public party support that is supported by the majority of Canadians
-did not contain an economic boondoggle of Liberal-style vote-buying spending

This occurred soon after an election that the Conservatives won.

So it takes time and patience. He did not have a majority.

Consider the alternate universe would we be in now with the Liberals in charge. We would be paying higher taxes across the board, the economy would be tanking the same way as in the US, we would have national daycare and a whole host of other bloated new nanny-state programs, and Canadian businesses would be crippled by higher corporate taxes and carbon taxes.
Oh Boy

Harper and his supporters have said, in the House on Mon and Tues and on TV last night, that the Bloc would have a “veto” over the Liberal/NDP coalition. This is false. The Bloc only agreed to support them as little as three times — once in a vote of confidence and twice on budgets. If the Bloc decided not to support the coalition on any other bill or abandoned their commitment, the Conservatives could vote in favourthem. Both the Bloc AND Conservatives would have equal opportunity to vote for or against a Lib/NDP motion or bill.

Harper also lied when he said his party would never enter into an agreement with “socialists and separatisits” to seize power without a vote. He proposed just such an arrangement in 2004, signed his name to it and mailed it to the GG. If that’s not proof of a lie, i don’t know what is.

It’s disturbingly strange that a minority PM, facing a confidence vote, can close down a newly elected Parliament for nearly 2 months — and call it a victory for democracy. It’s doubly disturbing to watch the leader of the nation lie, lie and lie again. It’s a disgrace, for all of us … including Conservatives.
Sisyphus

Sunny12……. obviously you’re right. But unbiased facts about the NDP do not fit the frame of rational debate.

I fully expect that when Our Leader wearies of demonizing “the separatists”, then “the socialists” will be blindfolded and up against the wall.
Mark

The Bloc are already part of a “permanent consultative mechanism” – it’s called Parliament.
Of course, the consultation bit only applies when it isn’t prorogued, etc.
In theory the coalition would only rely on the Bloc to same extent that Harper’s tories would.
If the coalition government does get a chance to govern in January, I hope the same arguments about what the Conservatives should and should not do in the House apply to them in opposition, but I am sure they’ll have switched their arguments again by then.
Steve M

andy j,

It’s the old “all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles” axiom.

What’s good for Canada is good for Quebec, but what’s good for Quebec is not always good for (the rest of) Canada.
A Tandon

TJ Cook…..Are you serious?

The separatists have been in the dumps for last couple of years since the Cons have been in power. The PQ has essentially shelved it’s perpetual referendums, and both Bloc and PQ have barely bother talking about separation anymore. That may change now, but it wasn’t Harper that offered them a role in government.

This was a terrible move on the part of Dion and Layton. Had they dropped the absurd rhetoric and the signing agreement after Harper completely capitulated to their demands, the Libs and NDP would be going into the holiday season in glorious victory and Harper severely humiliated. Instead, they overplayed their hand, and will spend the next two months in a time-out. Most likely, the coalition will not last week, and Dion will face a backlash.