Ending Canada's 'benign dictatorship'

Funny thing is, I'm not sure how much this will hurt Harper... plus,
the Liberals and other parties have to make themselves look good, not
just make the Conservatives look bad.  So far, I've found everyone
rather unconvincing.

Jeremy
-----

Ending Canada's 'benign dictatorship'
Stephen Harper's persuasive argument for - yes, for - coalition government.
By Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Mar 30, 2011 6:53 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/30/cv-milewski-harper-coalition.html?ref=rss

Here's a little test: what would the Conservatives do if they found a
clip of Michael Ignatieff calling Canada a "benign dictatorship?"

Right: they'd put it in an attack ad.

Another test: what would the Liberals do it they caught Stephen Harper
saying that?

Right: nothing. At least, that's what they've done with it so far.

So, let's consider that obscure but intriguing article, written in
1997 by two brainy conservatives, Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper.
Yes, it calls Canada "a benign dictatorship."

Oh, and it's a passionate defence of coalition governments.

That's right: the whole article is a detailed, persuasive and
deeply-researched plea for governments to be forced to compromise with
opposition coalitions. That's the only way, said Harper and Flanagan,
to curb the tendency to a "one-party state" induced by Canada's
"winner take all" system.

At the time, Harper was on a break from active politics, working at
the National Citizens' Coalition. When he returned as Opposition
leader, Flanagan became Harper's chief of staff in 2003 and became
campaign co-chair in the 2004 election.

Their article is lucid, but it's way too long for the Age of Twitter.
In fact, it's a slog. But for political geeks, it's a fascinating
review of the Canadian scene, asking, why can't we have a system like
those in Europe, where coalitions prevent governments riding roughshod
over their critics?

Here's how Flanagan and Harper begin:

"Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature
democracy, we live, instead, in something little better than a benign
dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a
one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and
cronyism that accompany any such system. Our parliamentary government
creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects
of society. For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must
face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our
political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of
our diverse communities."

What do they mean by "update our political structures?"

It emerges that Harper and Flanagan wanted a "strategic alliance" of
opposing parties to dislodge the Liberals, aided by reforms of the
electoral system to ensure that those parties get more seats in
Parliament.

For examples of superior democratic systems, they point to the Clinton
administration's forced cohabitation with a Republican Congress after
1996, and to numerous European examples. Only Britain, they say, gives
all power to the winner. (And even that example no longer holds. It's
another coalition country now.)

The TV pitch
Harper's views on all this were not confined to academic articles. He
laid them out forcefully in a 1997 interview with Paula Todd of TVO:

"The way the Liberals are eventually going to lose office," he said,
"whether it's this election or the next one, is they are going to fail
to win a majority. And that's where you're going to face someday a
minority Parliament, with the Liberals maybe having the largest number
of seats."

And the solution was — wait for it — a coalition! Never mind that the
other guys won more seats.

"What will be the test is if there is any party in opposition that's
able to form a coalition, a working one with the others, and I think
we have the political system that's going to continue to have 3 or 4
different parties, or 5 different parties, and so, I think, parties
that want to form government are going to eventually have to work
together."

Asked about his past enthusiasm for coalitions, Harper sidestepped
this week by saying he was just talking about 'uniting the right" —
namely, his plan to merge the Reform and Progressive Conservative
parties.

But that's not what he said at the time. In his article with Flanagan,
he said the opposite:

"A merger between Reform and the PCs, though still discussed, seems to
us out of the question. Too many careers would be at stake. Political
parties almost never merge in the true sense of the term, and the gap
between today's opposition factions is simply too great."

Well, times change. Another aspect of the article has attracted
comment: the suggestion that an alliance of anti-Liberal forces might
include a Quebec separatist faction. A careful reading shows the
article doesn't rule that in or out.

It says "a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with
conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be
enough to sustain a government."

A Quebec nationalist isn't necessarily a separatist. They're not the
same thing. But "nationalists" don't have a party in Parliament;
separatists do. The article does suggest that conservatives might have
"little choice" but to deal with the separatist party — the Bloc — as
the only political formation able to join such an alliance where it
counts — in Parliament — along with the Reform and the PCs.

As the article puts it, "conservatives who are unhappy with a
one-party-plus system featuring the Liberals as the perpetual
governing party may have little choice but to construct an alliance,
at least of the two anglophone sisters, and perhaps ultimately
including a third sister. An alliance would face many difficulties, to
be sure, but it would also have two great advantages. It would reflect
the regional and cultural character of Canadian society, and it would
give that character an institutional expression."

So - they're not saying an alliance with the "third sister" from
Quebec would be easy, but it would have "advantages." Of course, the
main advantage would be the possibility of replacing a Liberal
minority, as Harper described in his TVO interview.

Now, talking about it in a pamphlet is one thing. As the Conservatives
point out, Michael Ignatieff did more than talk about it — he signed
the Liberal coalition agreement with the NDP - which, while it did not
include the Bloc as a member, nevertheless enjoyed its support. That
sounds a lot like the "strategic alliance" that Harper and Flanagan
recommended in 1997. In 2004, of course, Harper did enter into a
strategic alliance with the NDP and the Bloc, but that alliance did
not actually attempt to topple the government.

The leaders of both the NDP and the Bloc both say Harper had that in
mind. Harper says he didn't. Either way, it didn't happen.

The upshot? Stephen Harper is right to say that he never tried to
seize power from a party which won more seats — which he now says is
"illegitimate."

But he sure did think about it — and approved of it. He didn't think
it was "illegitimate" when he was the one who came in second.

Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan: Our Benign Dictatorship, Next City,
Winter 1996/97
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51938443/Stephen-Harper-and-Tom-Flanagan-Our-Benign-Dictatorship-Next-City-Winter-1996-97

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot