Apparently the current political wrestling match in Ottawa has catalyzed the coming-of-age of Canada's political blogosphere. Good. It's about time this country truly embraced the practice, well-established in the U.S. and elsewhere, of hurling poorly-spelled sub-kindergarten insults at each other while hiding behind anonymous noms-des-plumes (like McGarnicle. Or Arrowsplitter).
This blog yawns and rises on its own sweet time, of course, so it's taken until now to post about this. Not that I haven't discussed it with people. And in fact, that might be the primary good that comes of all this - spurred on by the question, "can they really do this?", Canadians are becoming at least mildly interested in their own country's politics again.
The situation in review, as I'm sure everyone knows: Last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty released an "economic update" that did not include a major economic stimulus package but did propose the elimination of public funds for political parties, the elimination of public employees' right to strike and, I believe, dilution of some pay equity laws. All of this - especially the part about political funds - stuck in the craw of the Opposition parties, and the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have since agreed to team up in a coalition that would constitute a majority and oust Stephen Harper and the Tories from power. The Green Party has also said it would support this coalition, which would, if it follows through on its threats, make Liberal leader Stephane Dion the Prime Minister and implement a 24-member cabinet consisting of 18 Liberals and six NDPers.
Having fun yet? If you like naked power politics wrapped up in outraged, won't-somebody-think-of-the-country rhetoric, you have to be. Harper has called the coalition and its motives undemocratic for attempting to seize power without actually being elected. "Through the back door," as he puts it - a fine turn of phrase for a guy experiencing the political equivalent of forced sodomy. Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton, meanwhile, have bounced the "undemocratic" accusation back at Harper, suggesting that withdrawing public funding for the parties was a way to gain unfair political advantage (the Tories would lose the most in raw dollars under such a move, but that's misleading - they also draw by far the most on corporate donors, meaning that their financial edge over the other parties would increase).
They're all kind of right, and they're all very wrongheaded. Certainly, Harper has a point when he says that installing a coalition government just two months after the Conservatives won a fairly strong minority seems to go against the expressed will of the people. And Dion, Layton and their supporters are right to say that Harper/Flaherty's economic update was a sneaky, egregious exercise in pure partisan politics.
But what should happen now? The headline in the Toronto Sun yesterday bleated that "this must not be allowed to happen." However, unless they're suggesting a complete overhaul of Canada's political system, it absolutely must be allowed to happen - this is how the Parliamentary system works.
Nevertheless, don't be surprised if it all comes to nothing. That's the view of a writer at a prominent national magazine, and I see his point. There's too much to lose here for the coalition parties. The Liberals, chastened in the last two elections for their corrupt sense of entitlement during 11 years of continuous rule, would come off looking more than ever like a party motivated solely by gaining power, elections be damned. They'd also be putting the embarrassing Dion, who, more than any other single reason, was the cause of their historic electoral defeat in October, in the Prime Minister's chair as a complete lame duck. He'll be replaced in May, meaning that Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae or Dominic Leblanc would take over, also without being elected. And the NDP, while it would enjoy the chance to get closer to government than ever before, would be seen in some circles as selling out their principles and basically be conceding their inconsequentiality as a distinct party.
A lame-duck and uninspiring Prime Minister. Three leadership candidates squabbling amongst each other. An NDP that would surely become frustrated by the lack of attention paid to its agenda. A Bloc party that would always be there, offering helpful reminders about its own separatist agenda. How could this coalition possibly govern? How can any meaningful, coherent voice emerge from the racket?
The magazine writer I spoke to felt that, more than anything, this was an opportunity for the Opposition parties to kick Harper in the teeth after two and a half years of bullying by the Conservative leader. And, tail between his legs, Harper has clawed back some of the contentious items in the economic update. Having gotten these concessions, the Opposition parties might be wise to withdraw their threats of a peaceful coup. It could - especially if it results in a snap election - result in a major backfire in which election-fatigued voters end up giving Harper a majority.
Who said Canadian politics was boring?
No comments:
Post a Comment