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.
Print
Comment
If there’s a distinction without a difference, it is in the statements of 2, 3, and 4. The “Harper doctrine” in this case is straightforward: the governing party may rely solely Bloc support when all other options are exhausted, for a particular issue; the governing party must however favour non-separatism and hence never enter a permanent arrangement with separatists.
A Tandon: your last quote was almost 10 years ago to the day – although, nothing in Quebec or National politics has changed since then, has it?
A Tandon – perhaps my wording wasn’t clear.
My point was that since the right wing unified, the right wing itself has become the greatest driver of division in the country. Quebec separatists have faded into the background.
It’s a mirror image of the deep divisions we’ve seen south of the border.
That may change since Harper decided to use the BQ as a whipping boy – we’re already seeing Harper’s rhetoric being used to whip up fresh separatist sentiment. Even after everything I’ve seen, Harper has managed to shock me with the depths to which he will sink.
jwl: “Cons are unmoored from their beliefs and wouldn’t be making all these mistakes if there was more focus on ideology and less on tactics/strategy.”
Remind me – what a conservative principles again? Because every time a “conservative” gets power, they seem to act the same way and it’s not pretty.
Brad Sallows, I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of mental gymnastics you’ve had to go through to come up with that one. All this, knowing full well that the people you are defending attempted on two separate occasions to do exactly what this coalition is trying to do.
Reasonable people here can agree that 3 out 4 four leaders are acting like absolute idiots.
Steve M, I’d respectfully suggest that the calculus of federal policymaking when it comes to balancing provincial priorities has never been, and never will be, as convenient as you frame it.
First, it’s invariably in the interest of Quebec to have a federal government that listens to and respects the voices of all Canadians (including all Quebecers), even if specific policies or decisions may not be good for Quebec.
Third, here’s a difference between a policy that’s “good for Quebec” and a policy that’s “advantageous for Quebec.” Confusion between the two is rampant.
The issue is not in the Bloc supporting a gov’t, either Tory, Liberal or Coalition. If the Bloc chooses to vote with the sitting gov’t (to avoid an election, or because it actually likes a piece of legislation) that is all well and good. The problem comes when you reach a formal agreement with the Bloc — exchanging 18 months of support for some federal largesse (I understand about $1 billion in new transfer payments to Quebec) and also give them veto rights over future legislation. That’s legitimatizing the existence of a separatist party and its role in federal politics. IF you are federalist, you should be aghast. If Parizeau is in support of this, you should flee in the opposite direction.
Second, not third. sheesh.
SAB – perhaps the quotes are old. But Dion spent the campaign in Quebec disparaging the Bloc with similar comments. I’ll let some else find them, as I’m spending way too much time here.
Going for a beer instead… recommend the same for rest of the country
I was struck by Mr. Harper’s assertion that the coalition could only pass legislation with the support of the Bloc, or that the Bloc would have a veto over everything the coalition attempted to pass. Couldn’t the Conservatives just support the legislation and have it pass?
“That’s legitimatizing the existence of a separatist party and its role in federal politics. IF you are federalist, you should be aghast.”
Fletch, welcome to democracy. The separatist party (or is it the sovereignist party?) is legitimate unless you want to suggest that the ballots in Quebec should be nul and void.
And if you took a moment to reflect as opposed to just parrot Giornio’s talking points, you’d realize that getting the “separatists” to agree to prop up a federal govt with no conditions for 18-months only strengthens the federation, not weaken it.
They are the ones who agreed to set aside separation. They are the ones who agreed to engage in federal policymaking.
If anyone is guilty of engaging in tactics that are benefitting the separatists, it is Harper. I’m now concerned about the impact of all this on Jean Charest’s hopes for a majority. Nothing like collectively insulting francophones to get Quebecers riled up.
You think that attacking the arts was bad?
@ A Tandon
I could take or leave Dion. Actually, I’m perfectly happy to leave Dion and less happy on the taking front. I just see the recent rhetoric re: the Bloc as counterproductive. Yeah, they have separatist origins. But a lot of people vote for them because they think they will represent Quebec’s best interest. Yeah, in theory it would be great if everyone voted for the good of the country as a whole instead of their parochial concerns, but that isn’t really how politics works. I mean, Newfoundland didn’t vote for any Tories; Alberta didn’t vote for any Grits. In each case, it is largely because the parties they did vote for were the ones seen as best for the province. The Tories aren’t explcitly the Alberta Party and they have a lot of supporters throughout Canada, but a number of their policies are derived from the Western roots of Reform/Alliance. That comes at a cost elsewhere – e.g., Quebec, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada.
So, yeah, you can make an argument that Dion is being inconsistent. Though a lot has changed since 1998, notably the fact that the Bloc is no longer really campaigning on sovereignty, so I’m not entirely willing to cede the point re: Dion. But, at the end of the day, I don’t think that changes the fact that the Tories are basically throwing barrels of gasoline onto coals that had just about died out on their own. Now, maybe it will help them win enough votes in the West and in rural/suburban Ontario to get a majority next time. But it won’t help things on the unity front.
@ SAB -
Which leader did you have in mind as not acting like an absolute idiot? I would say either all four are acting like idiots or Layton is the only reasonable one.
@ hazzard
Agree that probably the best solution in an ideal world would be a Tory/Grit grand coalition under someone other than Harper or Dion. It would make sense in a lot of ways. Which is why it won’t happen.
Duceppe of course.
What is he doing that is not in the interest of the party and voters he represents? I do not see a downside for Duceppe.
A Tandon – agree wholeheartedly on your beer-based approach. I’m in.
>Brad Sallows…
With those who choose not to see a difference between “once in a while” and “always”, I will have to permanently disagree.
>since the right wing unified, the right wing itself has become the greatest driver of division in the country.
Since the right wing unified, the other parts have realized they don’t get a free pass to govern to suit themselves forever, and they had grown very comfortable that way. Politics became divisive as it dawned that the Big Prize (levers of government) could fall into other hands, and the left side has plenty of its own bitter spite. Most people approve of government with wide scope of powers while they control it, but not so much while their political foes do. The only length of Conservative majority rule – under any leader – satisfactory to some people is “none”, but that is not realistic or desirable.
The bigger the prize gets, the more divisive politics will get. Ideology is the ammunition, not the weapon.
Do we have agreement on beer then? … All in favour ?
Is this beer-based vote a confidence motion?
Andrew — without the Bloc, the NDP/LIberal coalition does not have more seats than the Conservatives (114-143). So, even to BE the government, they need the Bloc. That’s a big difference than just surviving a confidence vote.
Without including that, you are missing a major piece of the logic.
PolJunke,
Ouch. Yes, I know not every Bloc voter is a separtist, but I assume every block MP is. I took the Bloc resurgence in the recent election as more of a protest vote against lacklustre Con/Lib alrternatives, rather than a show of newfound Bloc admiration. But hey, I’m not a Quebecer.
A combination of B and C is what is at work here. The Bloc knowing it holds all the cards can be a bit more damaging than a Bloc that is, as it was when it supported previous Conservative budgets, merely the opposition party most terrified of an election. And C, not all broken promises are equals, and I would say breaking a promise related to the basic composition of the government requires a genuine mandate.
Also, I would reject D by saying there are few, if any, MPs who are primarily concerned with the national interest. Two months ago, they were going door to door promising to be ” a strong voice for Brampton-Springdale” or wherever. They see their mandate as going up to Ottawa to grab as much of the loot as possible and then rush home with it. So they’re all Bloquistes, in that sense.
andy j,
I agree with everything in your reply and yet I stand by what I wrote. I can’t tell if it’s my cognitive dissonance at work or if we’re actually not arguing.
Steve M, what’s happening is that I interpreted the Bloc’s willingness to sign on to the coalition as a positive for national unity.
The Bloc will always be the Bloc, they have Quebec independence in their mandate, yada yada yada. But over the past 5 years, they’ve embraced a broader view of their raison d’etre, saying they speak on behalf of “the Quebec consensus” and “defending the interests of Quebec” – often taking their cues from unanimous resolutions passed in the Quebec national assembly. I readily concede that this shift has been for political reasons.
But having made that shift from purely advocating sovereignty to defending the “Quebec consensus position regarding Quebec’s interests” in Ottawa, you have to then ask: what if Quebecers were to wake up one morning and arrive at a strong consensus that Quebec’s “best interests” are inextricably intertwined with the best interests of Canada as a whole? Would the Bloc not then be obliged to formally set aside sovereignty and wholly dedicate themselves to the “national interest” of Canada, as a means of defending the best interest of Quebec?
I admit I’m a radical optimist. I also live in Quebec, and my family and professional lives straddle the language thing on a daily basis, so maybe I’m too close to the project. But I think that the willingness of the Bloc to agree in writing to support a coalition government and an economic plan that is “good” for Quebec but not necessarily “advantageous” (and for the record, in my capacity as radical optimistic I reject the suggestion that Dion, Rae, Iggy, Layton, Broadbent are all stupid and/or power-hungry enough to agree to a deal that rewards Quebec and screws the rest of the country ,in the middle of a recession) is evidence that a “new” Quebec consensus regarding the intertwinining Quebecers’ and Canada’s best interests is actually possible, and that the Bloc was prepared to, at least for the moment, allow that emergent consensus to inform their conduct in Ottawa.
Obviously I can’t prove that any of this is on target- or that, even if it was true last week, it would be sustainable. But just for the sake of argument, say my interpretation is mostly correct. Now ask yourself: what have we done?
I am heartsick today because my gut tells me that I am right, and that what we may have done is to torch a bridge that’s taken a decade to build.
And to apply all of the above to Andrew’s framework, what if the Bloc Quebecois is not necessarily a separatist party any more?