The Upside of The Madness

While everyone was staring at their televisions yesterday waiting for the PM to emerge…

by Andrew Potter on Friday, December 5, 2008 8:40pm - 97 Comments

While everyone was staring at their televisions yesterday waiting for the PM to emerge from Rideau Hall to tell us all whassup, I was crammed into a CBC booth doing Radio Q along with Tory spindoctor Tim Powers and his NDP counterpart Brad Lavigne. It was supposed to be a non-partisan look at the nature of the messaging coming out of the government and coalition camps, and Brad and Tim were both great. I was a bit of a third wheel and didn’t have much to add, but you can listen to it here if you like. 

But the one thing I did say I thought was worthwhile was that while the whole affair was pretty sordid with neither side acquitting itself well, it was at most a political, but not constitutional, crisis. In fact, I said (to Jian’s obvious surprise) was that democracy had been well-served by the events. Thirty six hours later, it is one of the few things about The Madness that I still feel some certainty about: That it was in many ways an excellent Civics 101 moment for Canadians. As Brad pointed out, Canadians were actually learning a lot, on the fly, about their system of government and how it functions. 

I’ll go even further and say that the media did a good job, much better than we did during the election itself. There was not a day this week that I did not read something fresh and interesting and educational in the Citizen, the Post, the Star, the Globe, and right here at Blog Central. I certainly didn’t like what was going on politically, but for all the sturm and drang, at no point did I feel we were in a constitutional crisis, or that Canada was going to hell in a handbasket, as my mother likes to say.  

Sure, it might have gone otherwise. The GG might have refused Harper’s request for prorogation, he might have resigned, she might have asked the coalition to take over, Alberta might right now be on the brink of separating. Or maybe we’d be in the middle of an election.  Or maybe we’d just be waiting for Monday’s vote. But the world unfolded as it did, validating once again Wells’  First Rule: Canadian politics tends toward the least exciting possible outcome. I prefer to believe that our system of government has something to do with that. 

***

Obviously this is not settled, only delayed. And if you want a sense of how hairy things could get in January, I encourage you all to check out Glen McGregor’s story on the front page of tomorrow’s Ottawa Citizen.

Bookmark and Share
  • Steve Wart

    Or maybe this topic has been flogged to death. Maybe something interesting will happen in Canadian politics before 26 January.

    Backroom deals and rumours of backroom deals?

  • madeyoulook

    Well, we’ll just see how Mr. “I control the timing” Dion makes out. Interim Leader of the Opposition Goodale or Dryden wouldn’t be too bad. But I place no bets on a pre-May departure; I bet Dion still believes it is he who belongs there until the convention. And, with all MPs dispersed until the budget, caucus won’t meet together to revolt until then. So I don’t see Dion stepping down as a Christmas present.

    It is a shame. The very articulate defender of the federation, the letter-writer who exposed separatist thinking for the stupidity it is, reduced to the butt of jokes and hatred even from the party that named him their leader. He deserves better, but that would have involved (I now see in retrospect) a “thanks, but no thanks” at the convention. Pity. And it shows what I know — I was thankful Dion got in, figuring we now had a serious, smart leader atop each of the leading parties. Oh well.

    The Tories clearly need a better, stronger opposition to keep them honest. The country needs it. All that said, thank heavens the Liberals are re-grouping in opposition; as a government the libs would have made things quite painful indeed.

  • http://www.jmunr017.blogspot.com James Munro

    I can’t believe how many of my friends came to me to seek an understanding of the situation in Ottawa. I study politics and share news items frequently, so I wonder if other political types got the same reaction from their friends and family.

    Any one?

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    Van Centre: No, I expect the government to be responsive to the will of the Canadian public and for MPs to be responsive to their constituents. But, I do not expect the GG to bend to opinion polls or people protesting on her lawn.

    I think if a government loses a confidence motion, it should go ask the GG to dissolve Parliament, or allow a government to test the House to see if it can command confidence. I don’t see a particular reason to deny a government a chance to immediately ask for another vote of confidence if it has a credible plan to gain the confidence of the House.

    This applies to Harper as well. If he lost the confidence motion on Monday, I’d think it appropriate for the GG to give him a chance to have another vote in the subsequent few days to see if he could change the outcome. If he could not, then it would go down to deciding between another government or a dissolution. Allowing a government to retest the confidence of the House is not undemocratic, and respects the legitimacy of elected representatives of the people.

    Assuming Martin didn’t lose that first vote in Fall 2005 but suspected he might, and prorogued Parliament instead until after Gomery reported, it is from a constitutional standpoint no different. Some people would have screamed blue murder, and others would have supported it. But doing so without having the prorogation authorized by the House would have been a terrible blow to Canadian democracy.

  • aras balsys

    Canadians think we have the American system of govt. Contrary to what many Canadians think, the majority of us did NOT vote for Harper to be PM and therefore the Coalition is perfectly democratic & reasonable.

  • Richard

    James – a good question. I believe we have the highest level of university attendees per capita, yet I’d bet less tham 10% of our population had a sweet clue what just happened or why.

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    James: Lots of questions. From friends, family, co-workers. Surprising how few people understand the basic mechanics: confidence, the GG, the House of Commons, Representative Democracy (not a presidency).

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    “Sorry, Andrew. You’re forgetting that Martin first LOST a confidence vote. He then chose to ignore it. He then chose to do a ‘do over’ in a week. He then chose to bribe an MP to cross the floor.

    Not the same.”

    Nonetheless, Martin could have prorogued. My point isn’t that Harper is a bad guy (not that he isn’t, it’s just not my point).

    My point is that prorogation is not a power that should be wielded by anyone but Parliament. I tried to illustrate that point by putting the power in the hands of someone you’d perceive as abusing it.

  • Francien Verhoeven

    ” can’t believe how many of my friends came to me to seek an understanding of the situation in Ottawa. I study politics and share news items frequently, so I wonder if other political types got the same reaction from their friends and family.

    Any one?”

    Are you kidding? Many people have no idea what is going on. But I think that is also party due to the fact that Canadian style politics is still very old style. Don’t let the public in on what’s really going on. The old style politician still believes they know best, and they truly believe that. Keep the masses dumb. Or pull some more wool over their eyes, by saying for instance that 62% was against voted against the Conservatives. Well, for the record, 62% had also been against one of Chretien’s majority governments. ……….Mmmmmm…..then all of a sudden the 62% means squat all……..

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    The problem is that our politics are often portrayed as a presidential system. This is done by all the parties, because it is much easier to market the leader and the party and treat the House as a pseudo-electoral college than to try to cultivate and market strong local representatives.

  • Sisyphus

    Myl – The Liberal caucus meets next week. Wednesday, I think.

  • madeyoulook

    If so, Sisyphus, the leaks to Taber for the following day’s Globe will be an interesting read. Maybe Dion doesn’t control the timing. Or maybe Dion will prorogue caucus, in a flagrant attempt to avoid getting turfed by a vote of non-confidence…

  • hosertohoosier

    “Canadians think we have the American system of govt. Contrary to what many Canadians think, the majority of us did NOT vote for Harper to be PM and therefore the Coalition is perfectly democratic & reasonable.”

    “The problem is that our politics are often portrayed as a presidential system. This is done by all the parties, because it is much easier to market the leader and the party and treat the House as a pseudo-electoral college than to try to cultivate and market strong local representatives.”

    I disagree and will think Canadians do understand that we have a parliamentary democracy, but have a clear preference for democratic consultation on big questions. Those preferences have existed throughout much of Canadian history, as well as in our commonwealth neighbours.

    1. King Byng was an utter fiasco: we probably should have learned from the King-Byng affair that Canadians do not accept parliamentary supremacy. The notion that the government might change without consultation with the people (coupled with some other things Meighen did) led to a massive outcry that King was able to turn into a majority, despite a scandal. In the dismissal of 1975 in Australia, while Malcolm Fraser managed to win the election that resulted, governor-general Kerr became an utterly despised figure, a pariah that had to stop working because of the constant protests he inspired. I don’t think either is a case of a system working well – Fraser’s caretaker government and Meighen’s brief period in power did not last long, and were unpopular. I hardly think that is the product of Americanization, but rather long-standing beliefs about how democracy should work.

    2. Meech Lake, Abortion and Quebec referendums: Meech Lake was an entirely legal process, which was trying to accomplish something relatively uncontroversial. While it failed for legal reasons, the outcry over Meech surely played a large role. Similarly, nobody would ever accept a unilateral declaration of independence from Quebec. Canadians, whether there are written laws or not, EXPECT to be consulted not about every nitpicky thing (like our American friends who think sanitation commissioners should be elected and often partisan, as if there is a conservative and liberal way to process crap). The abortion case is probably the strongest example of the importance of democratic sources of legitimacy in Canada, because of how the referendum ended almost any will to change Canada’s abortion laws (which are among the most liberal in the world). By contrast, in the US, where a highly legalistic system put the supreme court in the cockpit of the debate, there has never been a referendum, and many social conservatives reject the legitimacy of existing abortion laws. A national (Americans are detestably ignorant of state politics) pro-choice referendum victory would split the pro-life movement, into a narrow rump of hard-core opponents of abortion and those that opposed abortion but deemed the law legitimate.

    3. The legitimacy of the senate: Once upon a time the senate was deemed entirely legitimate in slowing down bills. Mackenzie Bowell was prime minister from the senate, and while this posed logistical difficulties for an already terribly Prime Minister (namely in that he couldn’t keep tabs on his MP’s), it demonstrates that in the 19th century the senate was seen as a legitimate and important branch of government. Contrast that to the GST debate, where Mulroney was able to call up the Queen and stack the senate with pro-GST senators in order to pass the GST. The senate was probably in violation of Lascelles rules (my understanding is that they don’t matter on money bills), but the debate that ensued had little to do with the legitimacy of Mulroney’s action and everything to do with the merits of the GST. This is because everybody accepted that Mulroney was a legitimate and elected, if “wrong-headed” leader, while the senate was not.

    As Potter suggested earlier, there are two kinds of legitimacy, input legitimacy and output legitimacy. Canadians do not “fail to understand” their system for worrying about the latter. In fact it is utterly stupid NOT to worry about the latter – the purpose of a set of rules isn’t that people follow the rules, it is to effect good outcomes. In the case of the rules governing parliament, good outcomes mean stability, national unity, peace order and good government. Unlike a highly legalized system, our system is capable of change and evolution (ironically, progressive coalition members oppose an evolutionary system, preferring a strict constructionist view). As I think I have shown, democratic legitimacy is one of the cornerstones of Canadian government (its in the Quebec reference case too, alongside federalism and individual rights). Our system of government needs to account for this in matters of macro-constitutional affairs, or similar events.

    I propose a policy solution that, at the very least, should improve the clarity of the governor-general’s decision-making, without inhibiting the flexibility that makes our system work (Americans know what is going to happen in the future, but often get stuck with unworkable governments). Force the governor-general to call a referendum before making decisions that violate existing precedent. I suppose some body like the supreme court could regulate this. Referenda on macro-constitutional changes (because that is what a decision that changes precedent is), ensures the continued marriage of output and input legitimacy in our system of government.

  • boudica

    “I’ll go even further and say that the media did a good job, much better than we did during the election itself. ”

    I’d agree with that statement, Potter, except for the part where you pulled a McCarthy on us and called the NDP a bunch of commies.

  • archangel

    Jarrid,

    You really are a shill for the Conservatives and are quite selective in your characterization of Manley’s message. You and your ilk really don’t deserve the ear of Canadians, although I admit your money can buy it. Too bad you have to pay for the privilege of governing and can’t come buy it honestly. Canadians do deserve honest brokers.

    Here from the Globe and Mail is only part of what John Manley has to say about Harper’s Financial Update and the contemptible tactics it displayed. Manley is the sort of truthful and fair-minded Canadian you, your leader and your party can never be — and that is the real reason your party will never achieve a majority of Canadians’ votes:

    “Whether this was stupidity, arrogance or an intentional tactic, I cannot say. But to have created a totally avoidable political crisis when the economy was the task at hand was highly irresponsible. This has only become worse in the past week as a government desperate to hold on to power showed itself willing to be reckless on the national unity file. That is one sleeping dog that should be left alone.”

  • archangel

    Jarrid,

    I neglected to point out for the benefit of neutral comment readers — every knowledgeable and credentialed unaffiliated Canadian, from journalists (Andrew Coyne included) to University professors, while critical of the coalition and Stephane Dion places, the initial blame for this fiasco on Harper.

  • Geiseric the Lame

    The Conservatives won enough seats to assume power but not enough to keep it. Back in the day knowing large numbers of people wouldn’t understand that would have made a strong case against universal sufferage.

    My church prayed to stop the “overthrow” in Ottawa. I nearly died from stifled laughter. It still makes me chuckle.

  • archangel

    Geiseric the Lame,

    I believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each would ascribe to God its own attributes, would assume itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-shaped.

    – Baruch Spinoza

  • T. Thwim

    Geiserec: That’s actually seriously concerning to me — quite the mingling of church and state.

  • catherine

    “My church prayed to stop the “overthrow” in Ottawa.”

    What’s with all the religion in the anti-coalition movement? Ipsos-Reid takes a poll on the coalition referring to it as “unholy” in their question, people at the anti-coalition rallies refer to praying for Harper, one woman goes so far as to say God put Harper in power. Is this just the Conservative base showing up when things get tough?

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    “Van Centre, if that is really the view of the Canadian people, fuck this country.”

    Jack M

    Is that your ‘let them eat cake’ moment?

    ———–

    “I can’t believe how many of my friends came to me to seek an understanding of the situation in Ottawa.”
    “In fact, I said (to Jian’s obvious surprise) was that democracy had been well-served by the events.”

    I agree with Andrew P and James Munro

    I obsess about politics and all the inside baseball stuff and many people wanted to talk to me this week about what was happening in Ottawa. Most people had a sense that what was happening might be technically legal but believed the oppo parties weren’t operating in the spirit they were meant to be. Also, there were a lot of people who didn’t really understand what was happening but they knew they didn’t want the BQ anywhere near the levers of power.

    It has been a fantastic week for democracy because people were talking about politics, and people taking an interest in how their system works is always a good thing.

    ———–

    Glen McGregor writes: “It also suggests that Conservatives may not readily accept a decision from Governor General Michaëlle Jean should she ask the coalition to govern and refuse Mr. Harper’s request for an election.”

    I wonder what he is implying. I don’t believe the Cons will ignore whatever decision GG makes in January and I am not sure what else they can do but follow her decisions.

    David Warren’s article, also in Ottawa Citizen, was more to my liking today. I am sick and tired of all the whinging from, and about, Quebec and how their feelings have been hurt this week. I would say the Quebec cabal that tried to take over power this week definitely stirred up the ROC.

  • hosertohoosier

    “Geiserec: That’s actually seriously concerning to me — quite the mingling of church and state.”

    In fact it is not at all the mingling of church and state. It is a private organization having an opinion (that may not be shared by all of its members – I would have cringed a bit if I were in that church). Churches have all kinds of opinions – poverty is bad, gay people are bad, etc. Your problem Mr. Thwim is that you dislike the mingling of church and church.

  • archangel

    jwl,

    I too dislike the whinging from Quebec to the extent it happens (and from the “West” for that matter).

    I read a lot of whinging from the “official” Conservative commenters here as well, by the way.

    So here’s another whinge from me before I go to read Warren’s article:

    “The wolf changes his coat, but not his disposition.”

    – Chinese Proverb

    Will the wolf pretending to be conciliatory at last be returned to his natural habitat before he does any more damage?

  • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

    hoosiertohooosier says:

    “Canadians do understand that we have a parliamentary democracy, but have a clear preference for democratic consultation on big questions. Those preferences have existed throughout much of Canadian history, as well as in our commonwealth neighbours.”

    Where and when did Canadians have the chance to express their preferences on the ideas expressed in the Financial Update?

    Were those merely small questions and exempted?

    I do not believe we should blow in the wind of public opinion polls, nor be bound to rigid ideologies. But those issues were never expressed in – as other’s have put it – the only poll that counts.

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    It seems to me that there is a problem in our system to the extent that money prevents our government from being held to account. What we have seen for the past few years is a government that has run roughshod over Parliament, acting with impunity knowing that the opposition couldn’t afford to oppose it. There is something deeply troubling about a fairly tiny plurality of the electorate being able to exercise that much power.

    If our Parliament is not seen as having any legitimacy in selecting a government, perhaps the election of the government should have nothing to do with Parliament!

From Macleans