Conservative strategist and professor of political science at the University of Calgary, Tom Flanagan, signs an
opinion piece in the Globe and Mail this morning, denouncing the lack of democratic legitimacy of a coalition government brought to power without a voter mandate. He brings us his educated perspective on the matter of strengthened democracy in Canada, and the evolution of conventions.
The coalition's apologists glory in the supposed fact that Canada's Constitution is not democratic. Responsible government, they say, means only that the cabinet has to maintain majority support in the House; it doesn't mean the voters have a voice. Canadians, in their view, are just deluded if they think Canada is a democracy.
Obviously, the apologists didn't pay attention in Political Science 101. Here's why they're wrong.
[...] Canada changed from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional democracy as the franchise was extended to all adults and political parties became national in scope. That evolution was recognized in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 characterizes Canada as "a free and democratic society," and Section 3 grants the right to vote to "every citizen of Canada."
[...] The most important decision in modern politics is choosing the executive of the national government, and democracy in the 21st century means the voters must have a meaningful voice in that decision. Our machinery for choosing the executive is not prescribed by legislative or constitutional text; rather, it consists of constitutional conventions - past precedents followed in the light of present exigencies. The Supreme Court has said it will expound these conventions but will not try to enforce them. The virtue of relying on conventions is that they can evolve over time, like common law, and can be adapted to the new realities of the democratic age. [My emphasis]
I agree, and I think most Canadians do too. The context of our democracy has changed. With a new day of information and all its associated technologies, the public is much more aware of issues of importance, and do not simply rely on "their voice in Parliament" to decide what is best for them. Canadians demand ownership of their right to decide.
The coalition partners, moreover, did not run on a platform of forming a coalition; indeed, the Liberals' Stéphane Dion denied that he would make a coalition with the NDP.
Right on the nail, of course. The leading concern with this coalition is that they cannot be held accountable, because they have taken no specific engagements towards Canadian voters.
The Governor-General, as the protector of Canada's constitutional democracy, should ensure the voters get a chance to say whether they want the coalition as a government.
Yes, she should.
2 comments:
Check out the comments at the Globe & Mail on this opinion piece. There really are two solitudes. I don't know how we get through that mindset.
Indeed, these comments are disheartning...
The posters seem to miss the main argument of the commentary, which is that conventions change and that this sort of coalition needs to be put to the test of an election.
They rather argue that Harper has been flirting with the Bloc in the past... Sad.
But, I am occasionally reminded, by friends who are actually working in the Conservative government, that these dissenting and contrary voices are a small minority, who take the time to comment on news articles.
Even us, Conservative bloggers are a minority. We can't forget that the majority of Canadians don't have time or the interest to pay such close attention to political current events, much less to what a few polarized individuals have to say about them.
Post a Comment