Anyone who works in an election campaign (say door knocking) soon discovers the average citizen knows little about our political system, let alone the constituion. Average Citizen (AC) will confuse federal, provincial and local jurisdictions, and often operates on a completely incorrect understanding of our political realities.
Take for example, the dreaded COALITION. AC does not even understand how one gets to be Prime Minister. They talk about "voting for X for Prime Minister". News Flash. Canada does not have a presidential system. The election is about voting to choose 1 of the 308 members of the House of Commons. Period. After that, all the decisions are made by those 308 individuals, and the Governor General.
It helps to understand how it works if we remember that our system developed before there were political parties as we know them today. So imagine that we have a group of 308 individuals chosen at random to advise a big corporation owned by, say, Mr. Big. Mr. Big has agreed in advance that he will choose his board of directors from among the 308 but requires that that board has the support of the majority of the 308. Then Mr. Big wants to deal only with one individual so he also asks that the board have a leader who can speak for them. Mr. Big appoints that individual to be his CEO and asks her or him to introduce the rest of his board. Mr. Big accepts these board members and appoints them to manage various departments, as his CEO has advised him.
Well, you may have suspected, Mr. Big is actually the monarch, in our case Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Yes, Canada is actually a monarchy - a constitutional monarchy - having both a monarch and a constitution. Surprise! Her role is performed usually by the Governor General but only in the name of the Queen. Nothing legitimate in Canada can be done without the Queen's approval.
Now, to return to our analogy, over many years Mr. Big delegated most of his powers to the board of directors, and he has accepted the principle that he will be bound by their advice, provided that this board continues to have the support of the majority of those 308 elected members. Mr. Big still owns the company, and he still loves his company, but, for better or worse, he has decided to let the board of directors, led by the CEO, call the shots. He even pretends that their decisions are his decisions and their policies are his policies.
However, the board must continue to have the support of the majority of the 308. If that appears not to be the case, then Mr. Big can see if anyone else among the 308 could form a board that did have majority support - or he can call an election to chose another 308 individuals and see if a majority of them will support a board.
In to this scenario we now add political parties. Because AC is politically illiterate we keep it simple and label them by colours - say blue, red, orange and green. Instead of the 308 individuals the system was designed for, now we count how many of those 308 are on the blue team, the red team, etc. When this started to happen back in the late 18th and early 19the century, "partyism" was widely criticized as a corruption of the constitution. And, it is. Rather than help advise Her Majesty as to what is in the best interests of Her subjects (the true role of a Member of Parliament) now those elected are focused on what is best for their "team" [say, "Team Harper"?] It also makes it more difficult to work together because doing so might help an opposing "team".
So, what about the COALITION? Actually, a coaliton is an entirely legal, constitutional, and sometimes appropriate solution. A coalition currently forms and supports the government of the United Kingdom (the mother of parliaments). Mr. Harper and the Conservative team did a disservice to our constitution by demonizing even the word coalition. Like many of Mr. Harper's political gamesmanship moves this could rebound to his disadvantage. If his team fails to win a majority in the current election, he has seemingly talked himself out of one very legitimate and viable option to form a stable government - forming a coalition led by himself.
On the other hand, Mr. Ignatieff too long avoided and denied the possibility of coalition so that his eventual acknowledgement of it as a possibility seems a backdown. Mr. Layton has been more realistic and transparent on this issue although a little hesitant at first as well.
In any event, a formal coalition - where seats on the board (i.e. cabinet) are shared, as in the UK today, or a more informal agreement by one "team" to support another are both legitimate and potentially workable ways in which those elected could get on with the business of advising Her Majesty on the best policies for Canadians.
No comments:
Post a Comment