Will the new coalition government be unprecedented or undemocratic?

[velvetpage]

Not according to the professor of political science who writes for the Toronto Star. I agree with him.

Basically, if you're not happy with the coalition? You get to do what electorates always do between elections - take notes on the successes and failures of the government as it is running and use that information to inform your future votes. What our parliament is doing is entirely democratic and in keeping with parliamentary law and tradition the world over. Whether or not it's the right thing to do, as long as it's within the powers granted to the House of Commons by the Constitution, there's nothing you can do about it legally.

Which is going to hurt the country more - a few weeks of political instability as the new Coalition government forms, or another election worth $300 million while nothing gets done? Changes in government ALWAYS produce fluctuations in the stock market, and they're usually short-term. It's unfair and overly simplistic to blame the recent fluctuations on the state of the government, considering that at the same time, markets around the world are reacting to the massive credit crunch, the bailout package, the announcement that the U.S. is officially in recession. . . the list goes on.

Don't mind me - I'm arguing with persons not present.

Comments

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Not the way we do it, and therefore, *not* the world over.

The U.S. is not a Parliamentary Democracy, but rather a Democratic Republic. What is happening in Canada right now happens around the world in stable Parliamentary Democracies all the time.

How does anything get done except jockeying for power?

The various parties negotiate broad compromises across the political spectrum, which is generally a good thing.

But you guys do seem to change often

Hmm. To Wikipedia!

Canada has had 22 prime ministers and 40 federal elections since Confederation in 1867.

In the same period, the US has had 26 presidents and 36 presidential elections, and something like 80 or 90 House and Senate elections.

So... fairly comparable to the US, I'd think.

[siobhan63.livejournal.com]

If by "we" you mean the US, you don't have a westminster parliamentary system, so you're not included in the reference. Velvetpage was referring to countries the world over which have westminster parliamentary democracies.

And this situation is relatively new for Canada. We have traditionally enjoyed majority governments for the bulk of our young history. Minority governments are not the norm, but have been in recent years because of our multi-party system and increased regionalism in the support for those parties. Add to that the first-past-the-post voting system, and you end up with what we have now. If we moved to some form of proportional representation, it would do much to stabilise things, i believe.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You'll notice I said, "PARLIAMENTARY law and tradition the world over." You guys don't use a parliamentary system, therefore you're not covered. Any system that IS parliamentary leaves room for coalition governments.

We've been changing often lately, but that hasn't been the case for most of Canadian history. We go through long periods of stable majority governments with one party or the other - usually the Liberals, occasionally the Conservatives - and then, when that particular group of leaders inevitably implodes under the pressure of time and routine, we go through a few years of minorities until one party or the other has a strong enough majority to start the cycle again. Since the last period of stability lasted well over a decade, it's understandable if the next one takes its time coming. In another two or three years, we should be settling down into another period of stability.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, and as for revolution - WTF??? In Canada??? Over a squabble in Ottawa, where politicians are acting like politicians??? Canada has been a model of democracy for a hundred and forty years, and this series of events doesn't change that. Really, Canada has no excuse whatsoever for violence when it comes to their government.

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he meant the leaders of the four main parties could compete in Dance Dance Revolution, more fun than an election and better for cardio, too.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I woud very much enjoy watching that.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Sorry about that. Had I been paying proper attention, I would have let the other answers stand for me rather than dumping on you for the third time.

You're welcome to post, as I hope I'm welcome to post on yours - but I reserve the right to set someone straight when they're wrong, as do the other politically-savvy readers on my blog. :)

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. The reasons for doing it matter. The coalition could have pulled this stunt anytime during the last Parliament; the fact that they chose to do so only when their finances were threatened looks really, really bad.

I'm vaguely concerned that this might all be a cunning plot on Harper's part.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If they'd tried a coalition at any point in the last six months to a year, the Prime Minister would have asked the GG to dissolve parliament, and she would have consented - because for most of the last year, that government had already exceeded the average lifespan of a minority. There was no compelling reason to avoid an election like we have now.

While the cutting of public funding was certainly the straw that broke the camel's back, the NDP in particular is far more outraged over the cuts to negotiated contracts and union rights for public sector employees. You'll notice that they're not backing down now that the withdrawal of federal funding is off the table.

Frankly, I think the attempt to take taxpayer funding away from political parties looks far worse on Harper for proposing it than it looks on the others for objecting to it. The reason for that law was to eliminate massive campaign contributions by big business or other special interest groups, which often came with strings attached. With less reliance on that money, governments were in a better position to do what was best for all the people rather than just the big corporations with deep pockets. The funding model happens to chafe on Harper's ideology, while fitting neatly into both the NDP and Liberal ideologies - after all, it was the Liberals who passed it to begin with.

I'm content to wait and see how this coalition turns out. I'm not convinced it's the best thing for the country, but I'm very firmly convinced that it's better than Harper playing another year's worth of Parliamentary Chicken, making every motion a confidence motion and daring the House to vote him down. It's partisan and silly, foments resentment and rebellion within the House, and it lacks both dignity and efficacy as a long-term strategy. If this coalition can deliver some co-operation for a change, it will be a dramatic improvement.

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

Personally, I would have liked to see the Conservatives take everything but the subsidy cut off the table. It would have made it a little harder for the opposition to obfuscate their motives that way.

Frankly, I'm for abolishing corporate donations as well as the subsidies, and putting a low cap on individual donations. Let the parties hold bake sales and rely on volunteer work. The health of democracy is not measured by the number of campaign placards per telephone pole.

I am basically fed up with the lot of them. There is not a single party that I could honestly bring myself to vote for in good conscience at the moment. This mess is a disgusting spectacle of arrogance on the part of the Conservatives, desperation on the part of the Liberals, rank ambition on the part of the NDP, and opportunism on the part of the Bloc. And none of the options (continued Conservative rule, coalition government, or another election) appeal to me one bit.

Feh.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I felt that way at the thought of a Conservative government, and at the way the Liberals have been running scared for so long. I thought it was pathetically funny that Harper proved unable to goad the Liberals into bringing down the government when he finally wanted it brought down - so he had to bring it down himself.

However, now that the Opposition has shown they have a backbone however short and hard to find, I respect them a little better than I did before. That respect will grow if they manage to make this coalition work for any length of time. If they manage to put off the next election until at least next fall, I'll consider the endeavour to have been more success than failure, and if it manages to go longer than that, I'll be thrilled.

I think everyone is better off when politicians agree to govern the country through co-operation and dialogue.

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

Layton would win... he's been dancing like a centipede on speed his entire political career.

Harper would give him a run for his money, though, I think. He looks like the type that runs 10 km every morning. *grins*

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I bet his kids have every video game console in existence, so Harper may have more experience.

When you're the leader of the third-run party for your entire political career, dancing about is pretty necessary.