Commentary
Legality
vs. Democracy
The Harper Conservatives have been accusing the opposition parties of organizing a coup because they organized a coalition to replace the Conservative government. They suggested that their actions were an abuse of the parliamentary system and extremely anti-democratic. For their part, the opposition parties responded by explaining that what they are doing is perfectly legal and democratic, but that Harper’s request to the Governor-General to prorogue parliament was an abuse of the parliamentary system and extremely anti-democratic.
In fact, they are both correct.
The British parliamentary system is not a presidential system in which people
vote directly for a president. Nor is it a European-style system in which
people vote directly for a party. Rather, it is a system in which people vote
for a candidate who may or may not belong to a
political party. Then whichever party or group of parties can form a government
is called upon by the Governor-General to do so.
In a minority government situation, such as exists in Canada at the present time, it is perfectly legal for the opposition parties to bring down the sitting government and replace it with a coalition government, if the Governor-General sees fit to recognize the coalition as the new government. If the Governor-General decides not to recognize the coalition he/she has the authority to call for new elections.
The Governor-General also has the authority to prorogue parliament at any time, whether that request comes from the prime minister or is his/her own idea. In other words, there is nothing illegal about Stephen Harper’s manoeuvre to avoid an opposition non-confidence motion.
However, the issue of whether or not these legal activities are democratic is an entirely different matter. Both sides in this debate are suggesting that the “normal” manner in which parliament operates is “democratic”, while the unusual activities of the other side are “undemocratic”. However, one only has to look at the fact that “majority” governments are routinely elected in Canada with far less than 50 percent of the popular vote (and often under 25 percent of the eligible vote) to understand that there is nothing democratic about the “normal” operation of the Canadian electoral system.
This is a system that was
originally conceived as a method of regulating the conflicting interests of
male property owners, that is of the wealthy minority.
It was never intended to be democratic in the sense of allowing the will of the
majority of the population to be implemented. As the franchise gradually
expanded to include non-wealthy males, females, Aboriginal peoples, etc. the
wealthy minority was forced to come up with a method of preventing those people
from exercising power.
The method they came up with is the current parliamentary system dominated by political parties representing the interests of (and/or controlled by) the wealthy minority. And in case something unexpected happens and a government hostile to the interests of that wealthy minority somehow gets elected, there is the Governor-General in the wings with full authority to refuse to recognize that government.
Neither the Harper Conservatives nor the opposition parties have the slightest interest in a political system in which the will and interests of the vast majority of the people can be expressed, because such a political system would not tolerate an economic system which causes human suffering on such a vast scale. All of their talk about “democracy” is sheer hypocrisy and is aimed at confusing people and covering up whose interests these parties and politicians are actually serving.