The Rally for Canada, and Why I Won't be There (UPDATED)

(See the updates at the end of this post for clarification on the title. Thanks.)

I hesitate to write a post specifically about the political situation in Canada right now for several reasons:

• I don't believe Followers of Jesus should be committed to any particular party.
• I believe our faith should inform our politics, but too often it seems to be the other way around.
• I don't look to the government to be the solution to the world's problems. (That's the church's job, a fact that we've allowed to slip from our collective memory.) However, I will speak up when I believe government's actions are making things worse.

All that being said, I want to give a couple of reasons why I am cautiously in support of this coalition idea, and why I have issues with some of the points that are passing as reasons why it should not happen. (Generally I can't tell if those who are against the idea of a coalition are for an election, or just want us all to sit down and be quiet, and maintain the present status quo.)

Yesterday some friends pointed me to RallyForCanada.ca, expecting, I believe, my support. I think I surprised them with my reaction. I don't know if it's just rushed writing or disinformation (when it comes to politics I'm always tempted to suspect the latter), but I think the website is ambiguous at best. In fact, if you read through some of the tweets appended to the page, you'll find that some readers believe the rally is in support of the coalition. It isn't. Or at least I don't think it is. Nowhere on the page do you see the words "Stephen Harper" or "Conservative", but it seems to be a rally in support of Harper and the current government. I think.

Let's look at a few of the complaints, some of which are reflected on the page.

• We voted for Harper. He's the PM.

No friend, you didn't vote for Stephen Harper. Not unless you happen to live in his Calgary riding. If you recall the ballot you made your mark on last month  you voted to elect a  Member of Parliament for your riding. The leader of the party with the most MP's is asked to form the government. That's the way the system  works. Usually.

• We didn't elect these people. How can they form the government? (a corollary to the previous point.)

Actually, the coalition represents almost 70% of the votes cast in the election. (I don't have actual numbers at hand, but I've heard that one thrown around, so it's good enough for me.) One could argue that this "government", should it come into being, represents the will of the majority of Canadians. That's a bit of a stretch, but there it is.

• It's not democratic!

See my last point. Add to that the usually insignificant fact that our "head of state" in a sense, is actually the Governor General, an appointed (read "unelected!) official. (I know, I  know, she's actually the Queen's representative, but she gets to call elections, dissolve parliament, etc.) Talk about undemocratic! As George Strombo put it on The Hour last night, "once or twice a century this fact actually matters."

Look, it's no secret that I am not a fan of Mr. Harper's politics or his leadership style. As I've said before, he seems to believe that the job of being George Bush is opening up, and he's going for it. (See this post for an admittedly left-leaning American's thoughts on Harper.)

I think the PM's arrogance and heavy-handedness has brought us to this place. He is counting on the country having no appetite for another election so soon after the last. He's daring us to hold him accountable. He is, in effect, blackmailing us.

Do I think this coalition is a stable one? Not really. Do I think it will be long-lasting? Not really. But ours is a parliamentary system. It is made to measure for coalitions. Negotiation and compromise.

We need to try.

If it falls, then you get your election. What cannot be allowed is the PM doing whatever he wants, without consultation with those who 70% of us voted for. That is undemocratic. And in a minority government it's also just plain stupid.

Incomplete thoughts, I know. I haven't even mentioned that one of the coalition partners is a separatist. I haven't even addressed the government's "economic statement" which precipitated this whole mess. No time.

Feel free to have at it in the comments.

UPDATE:  The Rallies are popping up all over the place and confusing the issue, so I feel the need to clarify the post title now. The rally I would NOT attend is any rally that opposes the concept of a coalition government.

UPDATE: OK, so I said 70%, and it's actually 62%, as evidenced by the button I've added. Close enough.

Comments

[Bill Kinnon]

Mike,
C's got 37.65% of the vote, the Libs 26.26%, the party of abject silliness, err, the NDP got 18.18%, the Bloc 9.98% and the Green's 6.78%. But as our system is not based on Rep by Pop - the Dimmers and Libs got a combined 114 seats versus the 143 of the formerly-progressive Conservatives.

The C's have 46.43% of the seats, the soon to be ruling LibDims will have 37% of the seats - almost 10% less. However, to achieve their quest for fire, the DimLibs will jump into bed with the committed-to-the-annihilation-of-Canada, Bloq Québecois. They, and perhaps you, will use the argument "well, Harper was willing to deal with them during Paul Martin's short lived reign." It was a boneheaded move then (that did not come to fruition) and is just as boneheaded, but guaranteed to be much more destructive for Canada, this time.

As the BQ holds the balance of power, the DimLibs will dance to whatever tune Gille chooses to pipe. The net result, while temporarily favourable for Québec and select unions, will turn out to be very favourable for the C's in the longer term. And though we, the people, will suffer for the short term stupidness of the BQ-led DimLibs, there may well be a time of stability after this season of storm.

In the next election, which I predict will be as early as next fall - after the Lib and C conventions to elect their new leaders, the C's will achieve a resounding majority. With their new leader, replacing the control-freak Steve, the C's (with hopefully a lot more Red Tory in them) will spend three or four terms in majority power. This as the Libs are vilified as the party willing to sell out the country to appease their horrifying need for power - country be damned.

Jack better enjoy his short time in the cabinet - it will be the only taste of that higher power he will ever achieve. (He's the MP for my riding. I've never been a particular fan - though I have voted for him once or twice.)

And finally, I think it is completely unfair to compare Harper to Bush. Unfair to Bush that is. The control freak in the Bush administration was Cheney. Perhaps Bush would have higher approval levels now if he'd actually led in more areas of his presidency as he did in aid to Africa - something for which you and I are both passionate and an area which GWB fought with his cabinet - as they were against it. (Read Geldof's article on Bush in Africa in Time.)

[Harry]

Here's a link to the alternative rallys.. pro the coalition.
www.makeparliamentwork.ca

[Scott]

Seems to me to be an arrogant response to a problem caused by Harper's arrogance.

[robert]

well said, Mike.

[Bill Kinnon]

Does that make you 10% seperatist, then? I'm just asking.

[Mike]

Bill - I live in BC... you're asking the wrong guy.

: )

I was going to respond to your first comment thusly: Great analysis as usual, and I probably agree with most of what you've said. The only thing I'm not clear on is where you sit on the issue!

But, your second comment has clarifies things a little. I think. Do I put you in the "Not happy about it but willing to be blackmailed" camp? Not an acceptable option for me.

Negotiation and compromise.

At the risk of getting all philosophical on you, the economic world has recently changed for ever. Maybe the political world needs to do the same. Perhaps Canada has a chance to lead by example here. I'm just saying.

[Gillian]

I agree with you on most of your points, well said. I've been having trouble understanding the "undemocratic" and "We voted for Stephen Harper" comments I've been hearing around.
I do, however, think the timing is somewhat unfortunate as it is distracting our elected representatives from doing what they are elected to do: run the country.

[Bill Kinnon]

Naw. There all jerks. I want them all to go away. This isn't negotiation and compromise, my friend - it's just politics.

I was a Bob Rae fan up to his involvement with this and think Ignatieff would have made an impressive PM.

I have an intense dislike for control freaks - meaning Steve turns my stomach. I'm centre-right on fiscal policies, centre-left on social policies making me a David Crombie-ish Red Tory or a Stuart Smith Liberal.

My father was a French-speaking Montrealer who experienced profound discrimination in Ontario because of his accent so I understand French-Canadian angst (up to a point). But the BQ want to create a country in the almost middle of an already existing country. They are the Devil in Canadian politics.

The actions of all these clowns from Harper on, will only aid the seperatists. It's a crying shame.

But. As a Christian, I owe my allegiance to another Kingdom and the rest of this is just game playing.

[Scott]

I just re-read my response, Mike I trust you didn't think I was calling your response arrogant. I agree with the majority of your thoughts on this one, however, the coalition's economic stimulus package with weak details at best, that's arrogant.