Politics: It's a Parliament!

TORONTO, ONTARIO - One of the things that became clear in listening to comments about the current political crisis in Canada in the past week, including on the high-brow "Cross Country Check-Up" call-in show on the CBC, is that many Canadian don't seem to understand or appreciate their own system of government. For review, Canada has a Westminister form of parliamentary democracy that is complicated but offers some desirable features compared with the United States' Presidential system.

Canadians don't directly elect the head of the executive branch, nor do they directly elect a government. They elect Members of Parliament to represent their ridings who may or may not be members of a national political party. After the election, the Governor General--an appointed official that functions as head of state--has the function of asking a MP to form a government as Prime Minister; he or she will almost certainly ask the leader of the party that has the most seats in parliament.

From there, everything is based on the ability of the Prime Minister to maintain the confidence of the parliament. When the Prime Minister's party has the majority of seats in parliament, this usually isn't much of an issue, as the votes of that party will be enough to maintain a majority in favor of the government. There is nothing to legally prevent elected Members of Parliament from changing parties or voting against a government of their own party, but those scenarios are generally rare for obvious political reasons.

When the governing party has only a minority, things are different. In order to maintain the confidence of the house, the government needs votes from other parties. This can be achieved by a formal coalition or agreement with another party, which is rare in Canada, or it can simply be achieved by gaining the votes of other parties on a case-by-case basis by governing competently.

If a government fails in a confidence vote, then the matter goes back to the Governor General. The Prime Minister who has lost the confidence can recommend a course of action, but ultimately it is up to the Governor General whether an election is called or another party is asked to try to form a government. The latter scenario is rare, but if a smaller party can somehow gain enough votes to win confidence votes on an ongoing basis, then it can be a legitimate government. The key is gaining that confidence.

So, the statement heard many times over the past week that "the government is being stolen" is not really true. Assuming that the current government has lost the confidence of the house--and a vote has not occurred, so we don't know that for certain--then that government has lost its right to rule, and it is up to the Governor General to decide what happens next. That's how the system works.

Another comment that comes up a lot is "whatever party wins the most votes has the right to govern." That's not true; it's actually much more complicated than that. By convention, the party with the most votes will get the first chance to form a government, but the most important point is that such a government needs to maintain the confidence of parliament.

Exacerbating the problem is that Prime Minister Harper has made statements that are at best misleading if not downright false about what can happen in parliament. During his televised address last week, Harper stated, "The Opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen." Actually, they do--ignoring the subjective issues of whether it is a good idea for the country and whether it constitutes a good political move for the Opposition. Legally, if the Government has lost the confidence of the parliament, the Opposition does have the right to attempt to form a government, assuming the Governor General asks them to do so, and they are well within their rights to inform the Governor General that they are prepared to do so. It's up to the Governor General to decide.

Canada is not a direct democracy--if it were, we could legislate completely by national referendums. It does not have a US-style presidential system--if it did, we would probably be stuck with Stephen Harper for a fixed term, no matter what happened during a fixed term, just like the United States was stuck with George W. Bush once he was elected.

The beauty of the parliamentary system is that it allows greater reactivity--if circumstances change significantly, or the government does something that turns out not to be in the national interest, that government can be disposed of without having to wait for a fixed election. Furthermore, by being based on confidence, it fundamentally calls for the government to work with the opposition and gain their confidence, acutely so in a minority parliament. When parties actually do talk to one another, the compromises are likely better than what any party would come up with on its own.

Canada is in a crisis now because the Conservatives didn't work adequately with the Opposition on their Fiscal Update. The course taken by the Opposition in reaction to that lack of cooperation may have been suspect and impolitic as well, creating a bigger crisis than necessarily needed to exist.

Whether or not the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition is a good idea, and whether or not it has perceived political legitimacy are completely different matters from the legitimacy of the process. From a purely legal perspective, a coalition could happen in the Westminster system. Canadians, whatever they think of this specific coalition possibility, should not be questioning the legitimacy of the process that has led to its proposal.