Still talking about the Madness

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM - 73 Comments

My review of Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis is in the current issue of the LRC, on newstands everywhere. Christopher Moore has a note about the review on his blog, and for the most part he gets what I was trying to do with the review.

At the same time though, I think it is important to stress that my beef with the book goes beyond the fact that the essays are completely one-sided in favour of the parliamentarian viewpoint. In a comment on one of my earlier blog posts on this, one reader argued that balance for the sake of showing both sides is no virtue when one side is obviously in the wrong. I actually agree with that argument — I think the idea that you should ‘teach the controversy” is almost always misguided, and I’ve occasionally turned down requests to do panels or radio phone-ins for precisely that reason. There’s no point in debating someone who has bad ideas, it only kicks up sand and makes it harder to see.

The reason why I think an exception has to be made in the case of last fall’s Madness is because the fact that there was a controversy is precisely the issue that needs exploring. It is just not acceptable for a crew of academics to take turns berating Canadians for not knowing how their constitution works and the prime minister for exploiting that ignorance for partisan gain.

I go back to a distinction I’ve found helpful in this, between input and output legitimacy — any  stable democratic institution needs both types. First, it needs to operate according to popularly accepted principles and rules. But it also needs to give outcomes that the people, on the whole, find acceptable, and if a system gives widely unacceptable output, that is a prima facie argument against the legitimacy of the inputs. So my concern throughout all of this is not that Canadians didn’t understand how their system works; it is that a large number of Canadians saw how their system works and recoiled in horror. That is the force of what I’ve called the “democratic” challenge to the orthodox parliamentarian viewpoint; a book of essays that gives no credit to output legitimacy has simply failed in its intellectual responsibility to properly explore the issues and to edify the public.

Anyway, I’m sure we’ll talk more about this soon enough. I’m told that Sossin and Russell will be penning a reply to my review for a forthcoming LRC.

The Madness Revisited

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM - 2 Comments

Time to check in on what those useless humanities profs and social scientists are up to.

Oh look: UofT Press has put out an instant book on The Madness — although they’ve given it the extraordinarily dull title Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis (there must be a hundred books with that title). It’s edited by Peter Russell and Lorne Sossin, has a fwd by Adrienne Clarkson, and fourteen essays on the roots of The Madness, the decision to prorogue, the constitution and coalitions, and broader trends in Canadian democratic culture.

It looks like a very useful read, with a full slate of top-notch academics — Ned Franks, Jennifer Smith, Lawrence LeDuc, and a bunch of others. My only complaint, personnel-wise, is that some of the most important voices during the debate itself last fall have been left out (Errol Mendes, Richard Van Loon, Norman Spector, Michael Bliss) and the choice of Michael Valpy as the journalist to set the stage seems a bit predictable. (Yes, fine, I’ll admit I would have preferred to see someone from Blog Central given the conch, but there you go).

Meanwhile, if you’re in Ottawa next week:

William Cross will moderate a roundtable on the implications of coalition governments for Canadian politics featuring Kaare Strom, professor of political science at the University of California in San Diego and a leading expert on coalition governments; David Docherty, dean of arts at Wilfrid Laurier University and author of several books on Canada’s Parliament and seasoned political practitioner and commentator Senator Hugh Segal. The roundtable will be held on March 31 at 7 p.m. in room 618, Robertson Hall. Admission is free.

The Macleans.ca Interview: Power to the Parliamentarians

By kadyomalley - Friday, January 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM - 50 Comments

“Manipulation of public opinion by a well oiled and resourced propaganda machine has no place in the profound and critical constitutional decision making of the Governor General. It is simply unstatesman like to exploit the public’s misconceptions about parliamentary democracy.”

A round robin Q&A with four of the constitutional experts who joined with more than thirty of their colleagues to sign an open letter advising Governor General Michaelle Jean to consider all of her constitutional options – including calling on the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to form government – should the Prime Minister be forced to trek back to Rideau Hall in the coming days.

UPDATE: Through no fault of his own, Osgoode Hall Law School professor Bruce Ryder was not credited for his contributions. That has been remedied – sorry about that, professor!

1. Why are you sending out this open letter now, instead of in the days leading up to the Prime Minister’s visit to Rideau Hall last December?

Barbara Cameron, York University: There was academic commentary in December around prorogation. There was some frustration that the media was not featuring commentary that accurately portrayed the constitutional situation. Quite a bit of the media seemed to accept without question the quite inaccurate view that the Governor General had to accept automatically the advice of the Prime Minister and that her only option was to grant a dissolution to the Prime Minister.

Errol Mendes, University of Ottawa (bio), Margot Young, University of British Columbia (bio) and Bruce Ryder, Osgoode Hall Law School (bio): Last December, events moved very fast and time was limited to get such a collective action going. Several of us, myself included, only had time to make our individual views known extensively in the media. The principle is an important one and calls for clear assertion. In general elections, we elect a Parliament, not a government. A government’s democratic legitimacy depends on whether it can maintain the confidence of a majority of elected members of the House of Commons. Statements to the contrary are profoundly irresponsible.

Continue…

About that traitorous, illegitimate, antidemocratic Ekos poll …

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 11:08 AM - 48 Comments

… you know, the one we’ve all been yammering on about over at Colleague Wherry’s place? Anyway, the background data is now available, including full regional and party support breakdowns. Enjoy!

Interview with a Parliamentarian

By Andrew Potter - Sunday, January 11, 2009 at 3:58 PM - 51 Comments

Here’s a link to my Q&A with Peter Russell, one of our foremost constitutional scholars who has a new book out on the virtues of minority government. Prof. Russell’s previous book, Constitutional Odyssey, is one of the best primers on the quest to patriate the constitution; it wasn’t till I read that book that I fully grasped how the amending formula is essentially a definition of the country. 

I’ll get to a proper review of the new book eventually, but this interview should keep you thinking for a bit.  Here’s my favourite part of our conversation:

***

AP: On that note, you punctuate your discussion of the infamous King-Byng affair by saying the chief lesson is that the smooth functioning of parliamentary government requires all the parties involved to behave honourably.

 PR: Yes, and I know that’s motherhood, but I consider Mr. Harper’s request “dishonourable.” I made that submission to the Federal Court as part of Democracy Watch’s legal action for judicial review. Yes, it was dishonourable, it violated a pretty serious commitment that he — and not just himself and his government, but all the parties — entered into. And I consider that dishonourable.

 AP: Was Mr. Harper putting the Governor General in an untenable position?

PR: Oh, for sure. I mean, it’s always very, very tough when a prime minister does a dishonourable thing. I consider it dishonourable to promise a confidence vote and then, a few days later, make it impossible by asking for a prorogation of Parliament. People might have other adjectives; I’ll stick with dishonourable.

The Madness: Democrats vs Parliamentarians

By Andrew Potter - Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 9:58 AM - 128 Comments

As we lead up to the return of the House, battle lines are being drawn over the legitimacy of the forgotten-but-not-dead coalition. Two clear positions have emerged: On the one side, there is a group we can call the Democrats. The Democrats believe that while the coalition may be constitutionally  ok in a narrow, legal sense, it violates basic principles of democratic legitimacy. Two prominent Democrats are Michael Bliss and Norman Spector.

On the other side are the Parliamentarians. This group — which includes almost every academic in the country — points out that we elected a parliament, not a party or a president; that parliamentary coalitions are unremarkable in all sorts of civilied countries; and that Harper’s Conservatives had clearly lost the confidence of the House, with a stable government waiting to take over.

At the start, I was a staunch Parliamentarian, and I took Harper to task for claiming that the coalition was an attempt to overturn the results of the last election. I believed the coalition was politically a Bad Idea, but both constitutionally sound and democratically legitimate. I have changed my mind. I am now a Democrat; I have become persuaded by the arguments of men like Professor Bliss — whose piece on the Madness was the best thing he’s written in years — and finally of Richard Van Loon, who has a finely argued piece in today’s OC. Here’s the best part:

So what really makes a coalition legitimate?

International precedents suggest three conditions. One is that the country faces a compelling national emergency, usually a major war. A second, broadly applicable in less troubled times, is that voters must know in advance that they are voting for potential members of a coalition, one which will govern if its members can claim a majority of seats in the legislature immediately after the election. A third is that a party with a plurality, already in government or immediately after an election, forms the coalition and immediately seeks support of the legislature. But as the New Zealand experience in the late 1990s suggests the latter is not always a successful strategy. Stable coalitions in peacetime are virtually always underpinned by the results of an election in which voters were aware of the possibility of their formation.

The current coalition agreement in Canada does not meet any of these tests…

My interview with Peter Russell, who disagrees with me on this, will appear soon.

Honour Amongst the Parliamentarians

By Andrew Potter - Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 12:55 PM - 9 Comments

Here are the best two sentences I read this week:

“But even if better practices can be instituted to guide the parliamentary head of state (be it a monarchical or republican model) in determining whether all the possibilities of forming an effective government have been exhausted and that a hung parliament must be dissolved, some element of discretion will remain, and the system’s smooth functioning will depend on the good judgment and honourable behaviour of the key actors. That is the fundamental lesson of the King-Byng affair.”

Emphasis is mine. That’s from Peter Russell’s very timely and very excellent new book, Two Cheers for Parliamentary Government. More than anything else I have read on the subject, this book has helped shape and shift my thoughts on minority government — I’m now inclined to give it one and half cheers, thanks to Prof Russell’s arguments. But more than anything, the book is indispensable background reading for understanding The Madness. I’ll have a proper review up after the weekend.

The Upside of The Madness

By Andrew Potter - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM - 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.

The Harper Doctrine

By Andrew Potter - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM - 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.

Ten more on The Madness

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM - 51 Comments

This is from Peter Loewen. He sent this last week while I was away, so it is a touch dated. I present this for interest and discussion, but Peter’s a friend so please make some effort to be polite. –ap

Ten thoughts on a coalition government in Canada

·      First, coalition governments do not last as long as single-party minorities, on average. Controlling for electoral system, population, and degree of democracy, minority coalitions (which this would be as the Bloc would not be in the cabinet), last about 275 days less than single-party minorities. Blais and Ricard and I have a little chapter on this here.

·      Second, there is no reason why Dion could not be Prime Minister until a Liberal leadership race concludes. It would be unconventional, but it is not much different then when a leader takes power after running in what is publicly acknowledged as their last election.

·      Third, the Tories have survived on Bloc support enough times that they cannot legitimately criticize the Liberals for doing the same.

·      Fourth, coalition governments are extremely rare in Canadian politics. They have never occurred at the national level outside of the wartime. There was a coalition between the Saskatchewan Liberals and NDP in the last ten years. Prior to that, it’s been at least 40 years since a coalition at the provincial level.

·      Five, strictly speaking this is only a coalition if the NDP receives cabinet seats.

·      Six, what is occurring now is roughly equivalent to the investiture votes that occur in many other countries. Indeed, of the 20 countries considered in Laver and Shepsle’s Multiparty Government,  nearly half (9) have investiture votes. In other words, in many other countries it is thought strange to allow a government to propose policy before the house has decided to approve that government.

·      Seven, coalitions and occasionally protracted negotiations over government formation are normal in many democracies. That it is abnormal in Canada does not make it undemocratic. It merely makes it exceptional. By my lights the combination of three, six and seven suggests that this is not actually undemocratic. We may not like it, but the government is the cabinet that commands the support of the House. It is not the cabinet made up of members who got the most votes in the last election.

·      Eight, it will be very hard for the Tories to now back away from this. More importantly, it will be very tough for the opposition to back away now. They’ve taken one step over the cliff.

·      Nine, the Tories have asked for this to a certain degree. You cannot threaten to bankrupt your opponents (however much they may deserve it) and propose economic policy that is out of step with other countries and arguably with what Canadians want/or expect and not expect a challenge. The opposition is merely doing their job. They are mandated with opposing the government and presenting a government in waiting. If the Governor-General decides that they are to have a crack at Government then it is their right. If you don’t like it you can punish them at the time of the next election.

·      Ten, if the GG decides to call an election it is her prerogative. And it won’t be a waste of money!

Ten Points on The Madness

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM - 106 Comments

Go away for a few days and all hell breaks loose. I’ve spent the last 12 hours trying to catch up, here are my thoughts, for what they are worth, though I’m sure most of these points have been made already:

1. My overwhelming sense of all this is that it is a case of an entire coop of chickens coming home to roost. For the Tories, especially Harper, he is getting exactly what he asked for. He called an election based on various contrived and entirely spurious reasons. He ran for re-election not on policies but on leadership, then decided to cut the public subsidy to his opponents. What did he think would happen? Continue…