There's something about Canadian politics that I just don't understand. Maybe you have some ideas on this one so I'm going to open this up for comments -- moderated as usual.
On the occasions where we've had minority governments -- including now with three in a row -- the governing party always acts as if it has a majority and so rules. They know that, inevitably, they're likely going to get one or more of the opposition parties on side but that's pretty much a moot point; unless something really stupid happens the prime minister still pretty much has a blank check.
Yet in nearly every other Parliamentary democracy, whether derived from the British system or through another source, a minority government is always in peril -- always. Moreover the PM is not so stubborn to rule as if he or she was the king or queen of the heap. Deals are always worked out, and when legislation is introduced it is almost always with the tacit support of one or more parties.
Cooperation is the rule. Whether there is mixed member representation (as in New Zealand or in Germany), an instant run-off ballot (like Australia) or a run-off vote (like in France) -- even where it is FPTP as in India -- we don't have this attitudinal problem inside the PMO.
I've noticed a pattern that whether it's a Liberal -- Pearson, Trudeau or Martin -- or a Conservative -- Diefenbaker, Clark or Harper -- almost no effort is made to appease the opposition, or at least let it be known they're at least being listened to. It's damn the torpedoes all the way; and if side deals are made with a balance of power party every so often that are against the best interests of Canadians, tough.
I've heard all sorts of explanations -- because we have strong provinces we need an even stronger PM. Governing isn't about compromise, it's about making decisions. Why waste your time acknowledging the other parties when you're finally getting your chance.
So, what is it? What is it about Canada that makes minority PMs so stubborn? And would that change even if we did have some form of PR?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
2 comments:
I'll venture a guess based on experience... My family is quite involved in politics in India (Great uncle was an ambassador and friend of Nehru, and my uncle is a member of the Upper House, while my Grandpa was a District Commissioner). The bottom line is number of parties. In Canada we only have 4 "active" parties in Parliament. You know, quite likely what each is going to do.
In most of Europe, and in examples like India, you have parties for everyone... and they vote for their own party. The countries are pretty broken up into regions, and sub-regions, and cultures, etc. They have long histories, which allowed these perceived "differences" to develop. Their Parliaments are multi-fragmented, and ergo, it takes a real diplomat to be able to bring everyone, or a "majority" on board. This is similar to the UN.
In Canada, and in the US, we are blighted with fewer electoral choices. Our voters are not yet "mature" or adventurous enough to vote for who they want - rather, they vote for who the "populist opinion" says to vote for... As our countries mature, we will see more political options... As the depth of classification and division grows in our societies, we will see more parties.
In the US, we will see more growth from either the Libertarians, or another right-wing Christian group. In Canada, we will probably see a new party of the right, a "re-defined" NDP more reflective of the values of labor, and more strength in the Greens. Liberals will need to stay Center, and occupy part of the Center-Right to govern. We will be fighting it out with a "re-defined" Conservative Party: When everything comes to pass, "real" Progressive Conservatives will take their party back from the right wing Reformers (who are a bitter and vindictive lot, and will throw their support behind a new Western Messiah).
Minorities in Canada work for the "government" simply because they are easy to figure out. In India you need to worry about keeping something in your budget for the "Communist Party of Eastern West Bengal", the "Actor's Party of Bollywood", the "Farmer's Union" (all made up names), and navigate between the major parties (Congress, BJP). This leads to far more compromise (not all party leaders go "quietly" when slighted, and activist voters will cause strikes and street protests if their leaders are slighted). The compromise is something we will see less in the US and Canada, simply because the views of the major parties are pretty clearly defined.
At least that's my take...
It is a 2 way street. The opposition parties are no more interested in compromise than the government. Let's look at recent history:
- The NDP decides that it is going to vote against everything that is a confidence motion, even if they agree with the legislation. Lately they don't even bother to read it first.
- The Bloc automatically oppose anything that doesn't give Quebec more money or power. The Bloc shouldn't even be allowed in Parliment representing the country.
- The Liberals have been supporting legislation or abstaining from votes but before they do they give a speech about how said legislation is the worst thing possible and how it is ripping apart the fabric or our society, causing a global meltdown, violating charter rights, etc. Good grief, if it's really that bad then vote against it.
In this situation it is easiest for the government to govern like dictators because that is usually the only way to get anything passed. The oppositions idea of compromise is for the government ot adopt the opposition platform, that isn't going to happen. Anyway I'll go back to my original point that cooperation is a 2 way street and until parties on both sides of the chamber quit playing to the camera and positioning themselves for the next election I don't see anything changing. Either that or get rid of confidence motions altogether and go with solid fixed election dates, that way they are forced to compromise.
Post a Comment