Categories: Potter Gold

The Professors and Prorogation

Philosophy professor Daniel Weinstock* was on Power and Politics this evening, talking with Evan…

by Andrew Potter on Monday, January 11, 2010 6:18pm - 174 Comments

Philosophy professor Daniel Weinstock* was on Power and Politics this evening, talking with Evan Solomon about Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament. For the past couple of weeks Daniel has been working on a short article that he’s been circulating amongst Canadian political philosophers, constitutional lawyers, and poli sci profs, and which sort of went academically viral. It now has almost 200 signatures and more are coming in all the time.

The piece will appear in La Presse and the Ottawa Citizen tomorrow, along with a few other papers, but both the French and English versions of the piece, along with a list of signatories, can be found here. The list is pretty much a Who’s Who of the field, and it includes Ron Beiner, Sam Brennan, Joe Carens, Avigail Eisenberg, Simone Chambers, Mark Kingwell, Guy Laforest, Charles Taylor, Peter Russell, Reg Whitaker, Christine Tappolet, and (of course) dozens of others. Tom Flanagan is not on the list, but that’s no real surprise.

Daniel’s piece offers what I think is the subtlest, but in many ways most important, critique of Harper’s decision to prorogue, and it focuses on the question of executive self-restraint. There’s an old line about the American constitution being constructed on the principle that even if the elected officials are knaves, the system will function more or less normally. In contrast, the Canadian constitution leaves a great deal of leeway for official judgement and discretion. As UBC law prof Wes Pue once put it, you could summarize much of Canada’s constitution in two words: “Trust us”.

I think this element of trust, and the way it actually helps create a culture of self-restraint, is one of the least-understood aspects (at least by me) of the workings of our constitution. With great power comes great responsibility, and for the most part Canadian prime ministers have exercised that responsibility with a respectable amount of restraint. One example that comes to mind is the appointment of Supreme Court judges: It would be very easy for a prime minister to simply appoint highly ideological judges, to stack the court in a way that would turn it into another partisan branch. But that would simply lead to a tit-for-tat scenario, where the next prime minister would stack it with *his* preferred partisans, until the court was completely politicized. (Pause here to listen to Andrew Coyne yell, “IT IS!!”) That is of course what has happened in the US, precisely because the system is built on the assumption that this is how presidents will behave.

But when one prime minister exercises restraint, it builds trust that the next leader can rely on for his own decision-making. At its best, the system runs well because complete discretion has a way of inculcating a sense of humility and respect for the institution. Sure, the rules are slack enough that you *could* run roughshod over the common good in the name of partisan advantage, but can doesn’t imply ought. Indeed, sometimes can implies ought not.

Here’s the core of Weinstock’s argument:

Think of the idea of a “loyal opposition” so central to our practice of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to hold the government to a high standard of justification. The opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly partisan purposes.

We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country’s common good. If it isn’t, then the opposition has failed to do its job.

What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament and the Canadian people.

Harper has clearly not exercised such restraint. His best defense on this is that Jean Chretien did it first. But that is the logic of the schoolyard, not of Parliament, though that is increasingly a distinction without a difference.

_________

* Disclosure: Weinstock is a friend, and was my postdoctoral supervisor at the University of Montreal.

Tags: Parliament, prorogation, weinstock

More by Andrew Potter

Rob H

Canada, philosophically created by United Empire Loyalists, tug their forelocks and obey authority in return for favours from the mighty on high. Hence a nation created by promises of payoffs from a central authority by way of tariffs, railroads, subsidized industry and more recently welfare of all kinds. Canadians would give up any freedom for a guaranteed pension or other payoff. They prove it at every election. They are Americans with no balls.
Jimynee Krykyt

I do not remember a PM that has been so disliked and distrusted like Harper, especially one who could not get a majority. I figure, during all his travels recently, Harper admired the totalitarian Chinese system. In Copenhagen, he spent time with the Danish Royalty—must have envied their lives. Yet at the conference, Harper was treated like "little potatoes"—insignificant—must have gotten his nose out of joint. Harper has been afraid of presenting his "real agenda" to the voters of Canada—obviously afraid of defeat. Harper wants to rule like the Chinese Gov't and get the respect of beloved Royalty. He obviously despises any opposition and especially anything said in the media that makes him look like a fool—his manner is that of a despotic monarch—a shifty shyster. Harper should quit politics. Harper figures he owns Canada and wants everybody to play in the sandbox ONLY by his rules—however sinister.
jarrid

Act 1 – Mr. University Professor, can we get your reaction about the recent proroguing of Parliament by the Chrétien government?

Mr. University Professor: Parliament has prorogued over 100 times since confederation, it's a normal and routine exercise of parliamentary procedure.

Nothing to get too excited about, then?

Mr. Univesity Professor: Not at all, the universerve is unfolding as it should.

So you won't be joining Preston Manning protesting the proroguing of Parliament at a press conference later today?

Mr. University Professor: I have more important things to do. He's making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.
jarrid

Act II

(… a few years later…)

Mr. Univesity Professor, can we get your reaction on the recent proroguing of Parliament by the Harper government?

Mr. University Professor: Did you say what I think you said.! Harper's prorogued Parliament until March 1st?!!? And the GG's agreed to this? I'm shocked and outraged! I'm cancelling my classes this morning and will immediately start working on a letter setting out why this is so wrong and why our democracy hangs in the balance. I'll get it signed by like-minded colleagues who will be similarly vexed, I'm sure.

Moral of the story: the Canadian university set is as politicized an environment as they come. Look eleswhere if you are looking to find objective non-partisan commentary.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Some things haven't changed since your one year in school have they Jarrid, you still aren't completing your readings before spouting off…

(read the damn letter)
Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

This is ad hominem fallacy. Attack the argument, not the man.

Flanagan is a professor and a sometimes stooge for Harper. I don’t think you can make assumptions about the political bent of professors, much less dismiss their well-considered arguments on that alone.

jarrid

The overwhelming majority of university profs are left/lib.

Get your head out of the sand Andrew, that's not in the least bit a controversial statement.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

As of now, Harper can ask the GG to dissolve whenever he pleases. Dissolution does not mean the avoidance of harsh criticism: prorogation means no QP and thus no media soundbites or headlines, but dissolution means an election campaign, i.e. tons of opportunity to criticise the Government.
http://www.robedger.blogspot.com Rob

You clearly have a misunderstanding about what an ad hominem argument is. It is, roughly, as follows:

Group X makes a Claim (Y)
There is something objectionable about Group X
Therefore, Y is false

Your arguments against the claims of the professors takes this form.

Professors claim that Harper needs to put democracy ahead of partisanship
Professors are partisan
Professors' claims are false

My statement was not an ad hominem attack against you (see explanation above); it was just an attempt to understand and empathize with how someone claiming to be an academic could make such elementary mistakes in logic. Your argument isn't weak because there is something objectionable about you. Your argument is weak because it relies upon ad hominem attacks and sweeping generalizations extrapolated from your idiosyncratic alleged personal experience.

If you are indeed a conservative academic as you're making yourself out to be, and you don't think that your more liberal academic colleagues would view conservative viewpoints as lacking in intellectual rigour, that's fine. I'll stop making excuses for your bad arguments.

Egg Head

Ad hominem arguments are, by definition, arguments against some individual characteristic; but, as you can see above, I've repeatedly stated that I like many of the signatories on an individual level, and, in particular, that I don't consider them (or at least not all of them) to be partisan as individuals. Moreover, your attempt to lay out the construct of both an ad hominem argument and my own is faulty. You claim that I am saying that:

(A) Professors claim that Harper needs to put democracy ahead of partisanship
(B) Professors are partisan
(C) Professors' claims are false

But nowhere do I conclude (C) from (A) on the basis of (B). Not only that: nowhere do I suggest that (A) is false in the first place. To the contrary, several of my statements at least imply that I think that (A ) is a reasonable claim; I simply suggest that, given that (A) is reasonable, professors are especially unsuited to accomplishing (A). Given that you've misunderstood both the nature of ad hominem arguments as well as the basis structure of my own argument, you're not in a position to writing about "elementary mistakes in logic". Given that the remainder of your criticism is based on this misrepresentation of my position, and needs no further comment.

http://www.robedger.blogspot.com Rob

Saying that you happen to like them personally, or saying that individually some of them may not be partisan, doesn't change your main argument that we shouldn't listen to what they have to say because they are, as a group, partisan. So for you, from this objectionable quality, we can ignore the argument.

If you want to argue that this isn't an ad hominem argument because you weren't saying that they were wrong, but rather that they may or may not be right but that we shouldn't listen to them, I'm certainly fine with recognizing that distinction. I'd assumed that when you were telling us to ignore the argument, you were just being sloppy with your language and actually telling us that the argument was wrong. I drew this conclusion because it seemed less absurd than an argument which was imploring us to ignore correct arguments. Perhaps you can provide some clarity as to why we should ignore correct arguments.

Of course, it is a distinction without difference in terms of the effect of their letter on our public discourse if your views were accepted. You are essentially attacking the source of the argument rather than the argument itself, and then using this attack on the source to implore us to ignore the argument. Your argument for doing so is based upon the same rationale as ad hominem attacks, if it is not exactly an ad hominem attack itself.

Egg Head

The source of an argument can matter a great deal. For instance, someone is arguing that what politics needs is less partisanship, then especially if one agrees with that argument, it is natural and necessary to ask whether the person or persons making the argument, or their manner of argument, is itself likely to contribute to alleviating or exacerbating partisanship. So I've never "implore[d] us to ignore the argument", because I've never disputed that there is an excess of partisanship, or that it needs to be alleviated. I've just said that letters like this will not contribute to resolving the problem. The idea that the source of an argument matters should come as no surprise: let's take a simple example. Most academics I know would agree that Middle Eastern countries would benefit from political liberalization – women's rights, for example; but many of those same academics would also argue that arguments for political liberalization made to Middle Easterners can be counter-productive, at best, when made by Western politicians, at least under certain conditions ('neo-colonialism', etc). Thus, many of these academics look to indigenous reformers to make the case for political liberalization to their fellow Middle Easterners in a more culturally specific way than Western politicians would be capable of. Of course one could debate whether or not its right to do so, but its hardly prima facie "absurd", as you claim, to suggest that the source of an argument ought to be taken into account when considering the practical effectiveness of that argument; one agree with the argument in the abstract but hold that its specific application needs to be carefully calibrated, and may have more credibility or more potential coming from one source rather than another.

Dunbar A. Fortiori

"The source of an argument can matter a great deal."

Since you are anonymous, since your qualifications, credentials and experience cannot be verified can we conclude that you and your initial argument can safely be dismissed on the basis of your own [argument] words?

Not to mention that it has been comprehensively rebutted above.
Egg Head

If I were publishing a public article of some sort, my identity would indeed matter. However, the internet is largely anonymous, and especially on forums like this one, and so it would be futile to try and take into account the individual source of every argument in this sort of venue. That does make all of the arguments worth less, I would say, including my own here, but that's just an over-all reflection of the playing field.

Beyond that, I would say that it is impossible for my argument to have been "comprehensively rebutted above" given that its only be countered by Rob, who has admitted that he did not understand, and consequently misrepresented, my argument all along (by baselessly assuming that I was defending a premise which I'd never even asserted), and TJ Cook, who has not understood the argument of the professor's letter on which I was commenting (by failing to understand the significance of partisanship to the argument of the letter, despite the fact that that point is explicated in detail in Potter's post on the letter).

A further irony of your post is that while you claim that I've been "comprehensively rebutted above", you are claiming that about posts which repeatedly accuse me of ad hominem argument – despite (a) misunderstanding ad hominem argument and (b) admittedly mischaracterizing my own argument – and yet your claim that they've "comprehensively rebutted" my posts is itself ad hominem, and does nothing to address the substance of my claim as against Rob's (whether the source of argument's matters: Rob claims that its completely "absurd" to think so; but, as I pointed out, its actually quite common to think so, and several of the academics whom he is defending have made just such arguments persuasively).
http://www.robedger.blogspot.com Rob

Beyond that, I would say that it is impossible for my argument to have been "comprehensively rebutted above" given that its only be countered by Rob, who has admitted that he did not understand, and consequently misrepresented, my argument all along (by baselessly assuming that I was defending a premise which I'd never even asserted)

To be fair, I said that I took a colloquial understanding of your argument to "please, please, please don't listen to these people" as meaning that you thought they were wrong. You claim to actually have been arguing something a even more absurd: that the profs were right but that we shouldn't listen to them anyway.

You supported your argument that we shouldn't listen to the profs because they aren't credible due to their partisanship (which is effectively an ad hominem argument if not technically) with an argument that people won't listen to the profs because they aren't credible due to their partisanship. So essentially, you're trying to convince us that we shouldn't listen to the profs because people won't listen to the profs. Seems to beg the question, doesn't it?

On a side note, if you are who you say you are, why do you toil in anonymity here? Why not put your name beside your comments as the profs in this letter have, or as have other academics in the comments?
Egg Head

You've said nothing to show why its "absurd" to claim that the source of an argument might matter under certain conditions, for instance if a given messenger is ill-equipped for realizing the practical achievement of an abstract ideal. Indeed, you claim that this is an "absurd" argument in defense of the signatories of the letter, despite the fact that some of the signatories have made just such arguments in some of their own work.

You further write:

"You supported your argument that we shouldn't listen to the profs because they aren't credible due to their partisanship (which is effectively an ad hominem argument if not technically) with an argument that people won't listen to the profs because they aren't credible due to their partisanship."

The second half of that sentence does not characterize what I wrote. What you characterize would be begging the question, but I said nothing about whether or not people would be likely to listen to them. I just suggested that the partisanship reflected in public interventions of professors such as this venture makes it unlikely that heeding them will accomplish their stated goal, namely, a decline in partisanship. I further suggested that politicians themselves are already more qualified to accomplishing that goal, simply because they have more experience of dealing with people with diverse political opinions than professors, who are used to addressing ideologically homogeneous audiences. The popular appeal of either group never entered in any of my statements.

As for why I "toil in anonymity": because the internet is a largely anonymous or semi-anonymous place, including on these forums, and so I'm just used to posting in this way. I wanted to make a public, professional statement, I'd write a newspaper editorial. But I have no interest in that.
http://www.robedger.blogspot.com Rob

I just suggested that the partisanship reflected in public interventions of professors such as this venture makes it unlikely that heeding them will accomplish their stated goal, namely, a decline in partisanship.

Ok. So, you think that the professors are correct in their arguments, advice, and goals. Essentially, if we follow their advice, it will lead to their goals, which you agree with. However, because they are partisan, if we heed their advice, then it actually won't lead to their goals. So, essentially, their arguments are correct in the abstract, but they become incorrect once applied, because of their source.

Is this your argument? If so, can you really not see the problems with it that I keep pointing out?
Egg Head

"So, you think that the professors are correct in their arguments, advice, and goals. Essentially, if we follow their advice, it will lead to their goals, which you agree with."
I don't see that they have any advice for lowering political partisanship in general; they're against prorogation, which I agree with, although I don't think it has as many dire consequences as they do. I just think that if the issue is partisanship – which their letter suggests – then I'd trust the politicians to get past that, including Harper, before the professors, who will make things worse, not better.

Anyway, I don't see how the problems which you claim to identify follow from that. In fact, since at least up until recently you've apparently been criticizing me based on first a fundamental misunderstanding of my claim, and then the odd assertion that it would be "absurd" to find the source of an argument relevant to gauging its practical effectiveness, I'm not sure what problems you are claiming to have consistently identified with my position.
http://www.robedger.blogspot.com Rob

As I said, your argument is circular; it begs the question. I can't think of another way to explain that to you other than how I have explained it already, so I think that I'll give up.

Phil

Much ado about nothing, I think. The term "prorogue" evokes the old tussles between king and parliament and the rhetoric seems to be trying to frame the issue as such. But really this is a 6 week extension to the Christmas break, nothing more. Sure it serves the government's convenience, but that's no precedent. The real precedent is the Liberals' ahistoric crusade against an accepted tool of parliamentary democracy.

This issue will lose its legs as soon as Parliament sits. Moment of truth for the opposition: vote the government down or shut up.
John Hepworth

Its a great distinction about the value of trust. There seems to be some research on how the act of putting your trust in someone actually makes them behave in a more trustworthy fashion (citation needed) – and this is certainly discussed in the context of raising children. Give them responsibility and they behave responsibly.

In a simplistic way I think some people are just not capable of trusting others, and therefore don't expect to be trusted or trustworthy. Whether this is nature or nurture I don't know, but sadly it seems there's only the middle ground to sway in any election. Harper and his gang clearly use the tried and true playbook of fear, xenophobia and selfishness and it is shame on all of us that Canadian society has reached a point where that's effective.
Trust me – we'll all be better off when we regain enough self-confidence and confidence in others to give him the boot.
http://twitter.com/RickAnderson @RickAnderson

What blarney.

If the apologists for our dysfunctioning democracy would stop pretending our democratic institution works better than they do, we might actually get somewhere. Did these folks howl about "executive restraint" when Chretien made a practice of dissolving Parliament and having elections every three years? … When Trudeau prorogued Parliament and started a new session every year?

As long as critics pretend that the problem here is just Harper – rather than a PM-centric system which lacks effective checks and balances – then really this is just the usual empty excercise in partisanship.

Of course the PM and GG should not decide when 308 MPs and 105 Senators are in session. Call for a genuine change of that – take that power from the two of them and let Parliamentarians set their own timetable and agenda – and we'll be talking democratic change.

But no, will say Canada's sclerotoic political science community. That's not the Canadian way.

Exactly.
A. Clausen

I think it's key that trust has been pointed out. Because our constitution affords so much latitude to the Government in advising the Sovereign's Vice-regal representative, along with that does come a nearly sacred duty not to overstep that boundary and start abusing the substantial Royal Prerogatives for short-term political advantage.

The problem here, in part, is that the partisans on both side of the debate seem utterly incapable of putting down their swords for the briefest moment and ponder the direction we're going, and how it ultimately does harm our democracy. Yes, it's true that over the last three or four decades, Prime Ministers specifically, and party leaders in general, have accrued a very potent set of powers that have upset the balance of Parliament that has, to one degree, existed since Charles II was given the boot. The scenes of revolt and rebellion that we've seen in the two main British parties over the last two decades seem almost impossible here under the seemingly unbreakable force of caucus discipline.

But a line was crossed in 2008, and an attempt has been to make it into a wall. No other PM, with the exception of ol' Sir John A, has attempted to use prorogation to survive a political crisis (and even Sir John A didn't attempt to evade a confidence motion per se, though that would have been inevitable). You can't find any reference to it anywhere else in the old Empire or in the Commonwealth where our system of government still prevails.

The Governor General and Parliament were never intended as baubles that a Prime Minister could push around to his constant advantage. Parliament, since 1688, has supposed to be Supreme, and the unique privilege of a Prime Minister to advise the Crown is supposed to come with a sense of responsibility, caution and foresight. It defies the entire purpose and history of our constitution to have it treated like a game of brinkmanship, where dueling forces read the letter of the constitution, but ignore the spirit.

I hope that the public anger at the latest prorogation does last long enough to at least convince the current and future Prime Ministers that this is a line that should not be crossed, that there are principles far more important than simple victory at stake.
A. Clausen

I think it's key that trust has been pointed out. Because our constitution affords so much latitude to the Government in advising the Sovereign's Vice-regal representative, along with that does come a nearly sacred duty not to overstep that boundary and start abusing the substantial Royal Prerogatives for short-term political advantage.

The problem here, in part, is that the partisans on both side of the debate seem utterly incapable of putting down their swords for the briefest moment and ponder the direction we're going, and how it ultimately does harm our democracy. Yes, it's true that over the last three or four decades, Prime Ministers specifically, and party leaders in general, have accrued a very potent set of powers that have upset the balance of Parliament that has, to one degree, existed since Charles II was given the boot. The scenes of revolt and rebellion that we've seen in the two main British parties over the last two decades seem almost impossible here under the seemingly unbreakable force of caucus discipline.

But a line was crossed in 2008, and an attempt has been to make it into a wall. No other PM, with the exception of ol' Sir John A, has attempted to use prorogation to survive a political crisis (and even Sir John A didn't attempt to evade a confidence motion per se, though that would have been inevitable). You can't find any reference to it anywhere else in the old Empire or in the Commonwealth where our system of government still prevails.

The Governor General and Parliament were never intended as baubles that a Prime Minister could push around to his constant advantage. Parliament, since 1688, has supposed to be Supreme, and the unique privilege of a Prime Minister to advise the Crown is supposed to come with a sense of responsibility, caution and foresight. It defies the entire purpose and history of our constitution to have it treated like a game of brinkmanship, where dueling forces read the letter of the constitution, but ignore the spirit.

I hope that the public anger at the latest prorogation does last long enough to at least convince the current and future Prime Ministers that this is a line that should not be crossed, that there are principles far more important than simple victory at stake.
Egg Head

"Wow. That flies in the face of several conservative professors that taught me including one grumpy old Latin professor."
I certainly didn't deny that conservative professors exist.

"If you are applying this logic then we should exclude business owners, oil executives, or any other groups of people stereotyped as being right wing."
But its not simply a stereotype, its an institutional culture. In any case, oil executives are not writing self-important letters which focus around the theme of criticizing the government for its "partisanship".

"The idea that "THE IVORY TOWER" is a literal reality."
This sentence doesn't quite make sense, but anyway, I never used the phrase "ivory tower".

"Have you considered the fact that the majority of professors spend more time doing research than on lectures?"
Of course. I'm very familiar with that.

" Why? They are out in their respective fields of research which may TAKE THEM AWAY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME into THE REAL WORLD…"
Well, actually, that's true of very few of the signatories to this letter, since they don't do that sort of research. Most of them just read books and articles, and so don't have to leave their offices. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"…[if you believe that universities are in some alternate dimension]"
I don't believe that.
http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Egg head, that was a very well argued post.