I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Governors of Illinois and New York can simply appoint the senatorial replacements for President Elect Obama and future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not very democratic, I thought. But compared to Canada, that is small potatoes.
Readers south of the border might be surprised to discover the following interesting aspects of Canadian democratic institutions. Let's start at the top - the appointment of the Canadian Prime Minister ( the head honcho). Canadians do not actually elect their Prime Minister. All that Canadians get to do is to vote for a member of Parliament who generally runs as a member of a political party. If that party ends up with the most seats in the House of Commons, the leader of that party automatically becomes the Prime Minister. Usually we know who that person will be before the election. However, if the party wishes to change its leader at any time, it can do so, and voila we have a new Prime Minister.
Take our recent political brou-ha!-ha!. The three opposition parties were determined to gang up on the governing party, and then ask the Governor General (more about that office later) to let their new coalition take over power in Canada. This new governing group would be led by the then leader of one of these coalition partners. The bizarre thing about this is that this person ( Stephane Dion) had already announced that he would soon be quitting as leader, his party having been drubbed in the recent election by the Canadian voter, and his party no longer wanting to have anything to do with him. Sooo.. Canada would have had a new Prime Minister, Mr. Dion, from a party which had been roundly defeated in the last election, who did not even have the support of his own party, and who moreover would be quitting a few months later. Had the coalition still be in power when he quit, a new leader of that party would have had to be chosen, by members of that party alone ( not even the coalition partners would have had a say in this), and that new leader would have become our new Prime Minister.
The whole scheme was foiled when our existing Prime Minister asked the Governor General to suspend Parliament so that the "ganging up" could not occur, frustrating the coalition. The Governor General agreed, and Parliament was suspended. The person who would have become Prime Minister (had the coalition scheme succeeded) and who had already agreed to quit in a few months, was summarily given the bum's rush by his own party, and tossed out the door pronto. He was replaced by a new leader (Michael Ignatieff) without even a vote by the party membership, but by a decision of "caucus"; i.e. the elected Members of Parliament from that party. If Ignatieff should become Prime Minister in the next few months ( lets say the existing government falls and is replaced by the coalition .. unlikely scenario I agree), we will then be led by a person who was voted in by a tiny group of Canadians.
Confused? I do not blame you. Wait until you hear how we choose our Supreme Court of Canada justices, our Cabinet members, and our Senators. Stay tuned ( if you are still awake ), for future posting on Canadian democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How about this for Democracy...
ReplyDeleteCanada's current Prime Minister (Stephen "Don't call me Steve" Harper) was "chosen" by a group of Conservatives who themselves represent only a minority of the house and a minority of the votes cast in the last election (an election which Harper called early, at a huge cost to tax payers, simply in the hopes of gaining a majority, which he failed to do).
Then, when a group of MPs that actually represents a majority of the House and a majority of Canadian voters attempts to represent them as government, this same Harper has the power to singlehandedly suspend Parliament (albeit with the help of an unelected journalist who represents the Queen of England of all people) with whom he merely has to have a closed-door conversation. No explanations required.
The best part of this fiasco? Several years ago, when Harper's party was in an opposition position, he tried to pull the same coalition stunt, which he said was the only way to protect democracy in our country.
The best thing about democracy is its ability to convince regular people that anyone in power knows what they are doing or how to do it.
A couple of nit picks.
ReplyDeleteFirst, whether most liberals want to believe it, or say so out loud, Ignatieff is just interim leader until the leadership convention in May. That said, unless someone else comes forward to challenge him, the convention is a foregone conclusion.
Second, the interim leader is not selected by the caucus. The interim leader is selected by the national executive of the party, in "consultation" with the caucus.
Third, the scheme was not foiled. It was delayed. That delay resulted in a change of leadership in the Liberal Party, which in turn means that the scheme may not now be implemented. But if anyone foiled the attempt (which remains to be seen) it was the national executive of the Liberal Party in consultation with the caucus.
And one other thing: the coalition, regardless of the level or legitimacy of support its purported leader had individually, had the support of the majority of the members of the house of commons. I don't know how the concept of majority rule in a democratically elected legislature is so frequently and casually dismissed as somehow undemocratic. That's not to say people were happy with the idea. But that's a different question than whether or not it was democratic.
Canada's democracy may seem 'bizarre' to those who know little or nothing about parliamentary government. To those who do, it will seem pretty ordinary and fairly successful. In this latest brew-ha-ha, as we call them here, the 'people' seem to have been well and truly heard by all the players involved and the consequent changes (eg, Ignatieff's leadership) were appropriate and agile responses. We still don't know how it will play out, but be assured the phone-in talkers, the letter-writers and the poll-answerers will have their day. But then maybe you think democracy means something better and wiser than that? Meanwhile, I'm off to Hawaii.
ReplyDeleteI think "One Red Sock"'s comment merely reinforces my view that the Canadian democracy is truly bizarre, by identifying other very undemocratic aspects of it. In particular, Red Sock notes the role that our Governor General ("an unelected journalist") played in this incident. More about her later.
ReplyDeleteGauntlet makes some good points. However, the argument that because the coalition had the support of the majority of Parliamentarians, it somehow had some democratic legitimacy, is one I reject. The "coalition" as a recognizable entity did not exist during the last election and hence had no support from Canadians. Had it run as a coalition, I venture to say it would have had little popular support. Polls bear that point out.
I agree with pjohnc that what happened may seem bizarre but is consistent with "parliamentary government". My argument is essentially how undemocratic the parliamentary system really is, as illustrated in the recent affair. When leaders of countries, who have enormous powers, are not elected by citizens, but by small groups of insiders and serve at the whim of these insiders (whether it be the national executive of a party or its membership), this in my opinion is a bizarre notion of democracy.
Thanks everyone for informative and insightful commentary.