Opposition alliance undemocratic? Coalitions date back to the dawn of democracy

by Tina Kells | December 4, 2008 at 03:34 pm

288 views | 11 Recommendations | 6 comments

Hey Stephen Harper! There is nothing undemocratic OR illegal about the opposition parties in Canada seeking to form a coalition government. It has happened twice before in Canadian history, although granted it this is the first time the issue has come up since the Canadian Constitution was signed in 1982.

"We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power," he told Conservatives at their annual Christmas party at an Ottawa hotel. "My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."

It seems Stephen Harper has forgotten the right wing vote-splitting days of the 1990's when the Reform Party from the West (later known as the Canadian Alliance) hobbled the national Conservative Party. It wasn't until the Conservative Party was able to pull these Western upstarts back into a united right fold, by forming a coalition of the parties, that the Tories were able to win elections again.

The division of the right-of-center electorate between Reform/Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives worked to the advantage of the Liberals, particularly in Ontario, where the first-past-the-post electoral system allowed the party to win nearly all the House seats in the province in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 federal elections. However, while Liberal representation in the House of Commons stood well above the party's proportion of the vote, Progressive Conservative and (to a lesser extent) NDP representation remained significantly below their respective vote percentages; only Reform/Alliance and the BQ attained representation roughly in proportion to their electoral following.

Forget the fact that the Tories of today are really a right-wing coalition party, coalitions like the one that was formed by the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois can be traced back to the dawn of democracy. Effectively a Canadian triumvirate, the three-way opposition coalition is nothing new. The Roman Empire had two very famous triumvirates in the history of its democracy.

Twice in the late pre-Principate period of the Roman republic, political power shifted from the formal magistrates and Senate to three ambitious men, who thus constituted a transitional government, known as triumviratus, each time only to break up again in civil war:

What modern scholars call the First Triumvirate was an informal political alliance of two rival generals, Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great representing the popular viz. senatorial party, with the extremely wealthy businessman Marcus Licinius Crassus.[1] This fell apart after the death of Crassus, and the two other triumvirs fought a civil war, during which Pompey was killed and Caesar established his sole rule as perpetual dictator.

The Second Triumvirate was a formal governing body, consisting of Octavian and Mark Antony, the rivals for real power, and third wheel Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Lepidus was sidelined early on in the triumvirate, and Antony was eliminated in a civil war, leaving Octavian as the sole leader.

Of course Rome was a Democratic Republic and Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy but to call a coalition of elected leaders undemocratic is nothing more than a scare tactic that panders to a lowest common denominator. Ditto for throwing around the word separatist every time a microphone is nearby.

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric," said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs. "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.

In Canada, there's no national vote for prime minister. People elect MPs in 308 ridings, and a government holds power only as long as it has the support of a majority of those MPs.

"We have a rule that the licence to govern is having the confidence of the House of Commons," said Peter Russell, a former University of Toronto professor and adviser to past governors general.

"I'm sorry, that's the rule. If they want to change it to having a public opinion poll, we'd have to reform and rewrite our Constitution."

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.

Stephen Harper played the rarely used prorogue card to get Governor-General Michaelle Jean to suspend parliament so that he could hold on power for 7 more weeks. Now Harper and the Conservative minority can rule Canada without the confidence of Parliament and without the input from the other elected members of the House of Commons.

Now that, Mr. Harper, IS undemocratic!

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | Digg | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

ConcernedCanuck (not verified)

at 17:10 on December 4th, 2008

Hey Tina - We understand that a coalition is constitutionally viable, however, I think the context of this is what has so many people so outraged. We JUST had an election and the people spoke. The Prime Minister isn't lying to people that's just more rhetoric - but he does have a point that really resonates: you can't allow the Bloc to have a say/veto whatever you want to call it when they don't have the same agenda as the other parties. You should read Stephen LeDrew's article in the National Post today (he was the President of the Liberal Party). He says that if you think Harper's a control freak, you have to meet Dion and that Dion wanted to become PM before he is booted out by HIS OWN PARTY. How responsible is it really, to take control when Dion doens't have the confidence of his own party? We all have a right to our opinions, but there is a reason the majority of people are anti-coalition.

Tina Kells

at 17:19 on December 4th, 2008

Point well taken on Dion. Harper has acted incredibly irresponsibly in the face of this very legal move in suggesting that it is in any way undemocratic or against the law. That is the point here. Pro-coalition or anti-coalition, it doesn't change the fact that our fearless leader is lying to Canadians.

Paschen

at 17:27 on December 4th, 2008

Good Post Tina. Interesting Opinion.

Tina Kells

at 17:30 on December 4th, 2008

Thanks! Saw this come across Twitter... a really good summary of the truth behind a coalition government.

Regarding the Liberal-NDP Coalition, Prorogation of Parliament, Canadian Unity, etc.:

I believe people misunderstand what the accord between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party to form a Coalition government, with Bloc Québécois support, actually means for Canada, and for Canadians.

The Liberal-NDP Coalition is simply an agreement to work together; to cooperate with each other for the good of Canada, and for the good of Canadians.

The Liberal-NDP Coalition does not mean that they have given up their individual party ideals.

The Liberal-NDP Coalition does not mean that they have betrayed the people who have voted for them.

The Liberal-NDP Coalition means that they have decided to work together in parliament for the people who voted for them.

In order for the Liberal-NDP Coalition to work, the Bloc Québécois have pledged their support for matters of Confidence.

The Bloc Québécois have no veto powers - this is misinformation and it is misleading to Canadians.

Conservative MPs are drawing lines - dividing Canada when they say that the Bloc Québécois have no place in the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois MPs were duly elected to represent the Canadians whom elected them to the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois have said that they will work together with the Liberals and the NDP, and support them on matters of Confidence for a minimum of 18 months.

The very definition of Parliament is government working together for the good of Canada, and for the good of Canadians.

This is what the Liberal, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois have done by signing the accord to form a Liberal-NDP Coalition government, with Bloc Québécois support.

The Liberal-NDP Coalition is a good thing for the majority of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservatives, who voted for anything but Conservative!

The Westminster system, by which Canada's Parliamentary system of government is based, allows for this Liberal-NDP Coalition, without an Election.

Canada's Parliamentary system also allows for the Prorogation of Parliament, but not in the way which the Prime Minister has opted to do so.

The Prime Minister has had the shortest amount of time working for Canada, and for Canadians - in any one calendar year - of any sitting Prime Minister.

Parliament adjourned in late June of this year for the Summer holiday.

Instead of returning to work in September, the Prime Minister broke his own fixed Election Date Law, citing the dysfunction of Parliament as the reason.

An Election was called for October 14th.

The Throne Speech was read in late November.

Now, on the 4th day of December, the Prime Minister prorogues Parliament until January 26th of next year.

This means, the Canadian Parliament really has not worked, and has not been working, for 6 months.

By proroguing Parliament, the Prime Minister is depriving the democratically elected Members of Parliament the right to work for Canadians.

By proroguing Parliament, the Prime Minister is depriving the democratic right of each Member of Parliament to vote for, or against, the December 1st Confidence Motion that was put before the House of Commons.

Last week, the Prime Minister delayed the December 1st Confidence Motion until December 8th.

By proroguing Parliament, the Prime Minister has effectively spat on Canadians, and their democratic rights under the Parliamentary system in Canada.

By proroguing Parliament, the Prime Minister avoided certain defeat next week on December 8th.

This is not democracy. And this, is not the Prime Minister protecting democracy.

I am disappointed with the Governor General's decision to approve Prorogation.

I am disappointed with the Governor General's decision to approve the request of the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament.

I am disappointed, however, I respect the Governor General's decision.

The Governor General has done her duty as the Queen of England's Representative in Canada.

I believe the Governor General used all available information and tools to come to this decision.

I believe Canadians must respect the Governor General's decision.

To disrespect the Governor General's decision to approve the Prorogation of Parliament is to disrespect Canada and its Parliamentary system, as well as its Constitutional Monarchy.

I encourage Canadians to respect the Governor General's decision.

I denounce the Prime Minister's misuse of Prorogation to hold on to power; to, in fact, delay a working Parliament for Canadians.

I encourage Canadians to denounce the Prime Minister's misuse of Prorogation to hold on to power.

I encourage Canadians to denounce the Prime Minister's delay of a working Parliament for Canada.

I support a Liberal-NDP Coalition and I look forward now to January 26th.

mofiac

at 18:05 on December 4th, 2008

Thank you for posting that. Canadians need to be more informed of what is actually taking place within our government. (Major emphasis on "actually".)

Howard McTaggart (not verified)

at 08:38 on December 25th, 2008

Regarding the statement that the "Coalition is not Undemocratic" shows a total lack of knowledge on what democracy means. It is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system. It is derived from δημοκρατία, "popular government" δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength".

This coalition was formed by a bunch of political gangsters who knowing if they forced another election they would be doomed to fail yet again so the only remedy for them was a violent takeover disregarding the will of the people.