Byers misunderstands democracy
Nanaimo, BC bore witness to an interesting protest today, as a group of pro-coalition protesters declared Democracy in Canada to be dead.
In an organized stunt, a flag-draped box -- apparently it was supposed to be a coffin -- was carried to the office of Conservative Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney where a eulogy for Canadian democracy was read.
Michael Byers then addressed the crowd.
"Democracy is not yet dead, this is a kind of funeral we could in all seriousness be having in a couple of months unless we do something serious to stop it," Byers announced. "Everyone in Canada needs to be educated on how our constitution works. They need to be educated that coalitions have happened before in Canada and that it happens in other countries - it happens every election in Israel, so there is nothing to be afraid of."
Except that, once again, Byers is putting ideology before reality. And this time, he's putting ideology before national unity.
To begin with, there is no Constitutional precedent for handing the reigns of government over to a coalition after a duly elected government has been defeated. There is, in the King-Byng affair, a precedent for handing the reigns of power over to a single-party government after a coalition was defeated.
However, those familiar with history will remember that William Lyon Mackenzie King -- defeated after his allies in the Progressive party abandoned his coalition government -- had preferred an election to the ascension of the Aurthur Meighen Conservative party. When Governor General Julian Byng refused to call the election, King denounced the affair as British interference in Canadian affairs. He moved quickly to help defeat the Meighen Conservatives, and used the issue to win the ensuing election.
It is certain that the Constitution allows for the ascension of a coalition government to power under such conditions. However, it emphatically does not demand it.
Whether Byers cares to admit it or not, the choice between the coalition and an election right now very much is up to the Governor General. But there's one key, undemocratic hitch in this particular matter: no one elected the Governor General, but they did elect a government.
In asking for a prorogation of Parliament, Harper bought time for the elected officials of this country to sort this mess out instead of simply relying on a decision rendered by an appointed governmental figurehead. Granting this prorogation was the only responsible option on the table for the Governor General.
Handing the reigns of government over to a government with a separatist party as a coalition partner simply cannot be regarded as an option, no matter what the ideologically blindfolded Byers may demand. No government with a separatist party as a coalition partner could even possibly be legitimate. No government with a separatist party as a coalition partner could be expected to meet its national unity obligations.
But this, by far, is not the only dilemma that Byers has overlooked. The second one is far more basic, far more important, and it is far more to Byers' discredit that he's chosen to ignore it.
The idea in a democracy is that power over the affairs of the nation is to be wielded by elected officials, not appointed officials. Even if the Constitution allows the Governor General to appoint a coalition government, there is no guarantee that even if such a government could command the confidence of the house that it could command the confidence of the people.
The most recent polls confirm that, even with the more popular Michael Ignatieff at the helm, this Coalition does not enjoy the confidence of Canadians.
In Intent for a Nation, Byers lays out his vision for Canada. Unfortunately, he seems to have no comprehension, whatsoever of the intent of Canadian democracy -- that Canadians, not appointed officials, will choose their government.
A plurality of Canadians voted for Stephen Harper as their Prime Minister. The plurality did not vote for Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, or Gilles Duceppe. The plurality did not even vote for a coalition government. Evidently, they wouldn't have voted for it even if they had the option. Canadians certainly don't plan to vote for it now.
Apparently Byers doesn't understand this. For Byers, democracy dies when appointed (yet oddly powerful) officials make the only responsible decision available. For Byers, democracy dies when elected officials are called upon to resolve a crisis before unprecedented actions are taken. For Byers, democracy dies when he doesn't get the government he wants.
Democracy in Canada is not dead. It isn't even dying. While it could certainly stand to undergo some elective surgery -- an elected senate and an elected Governor General, just for starters -- democracy is alive and well in Canada.
Even if people such as Michael Byers don't understand the intent.
Showing posts with label William Lyon Mackenzie King. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Lyon Mackenzie King. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Red Toryism Is Not Isolationism
But oddly enough, David Orchard seems to think so
One may wonder if Liberal leader Stephane Dion is disappointed or relieved that David Orchard, his star candidate in Desthene-Missinni-Churchill River riding, has manged to produce so little press coverage.
When the press did bite at that particular worm, it was
In a recent candidates debate in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Orchard talked about what a few of his priorities are.
“One of my priorities is the war,” Orchard announced.
Indeed. Orchard priorities the war so highly that he's decided to join the party that deployed Canadian forces to Afghanistan in the first place, under a leader who was a member of the cabinet that decided to do so.
Orchard's views on the war are far from secret. In February of this year, Orchard published an article on Globalresearch.ca in which he makes some remarkable comments.
Orchard essentially compares Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to slavery, and also attempts to cast doubts on previous humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia and Haiti.
Orchard would likely portray his comments as embodying the concerns with national sovereignty so deeply held within Red Toryism. But apparently Orchard never received the memo that Red Toryism does not condone genocides, such as those being perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic.
Nor does Red Toryism condone unarmed civilians caught in the midst of civil conflicts being left to their own devices.
Nor does Red Toryism condone harbouring terrorists while they plan attacks against foreign countries.
In short, Red Toryism is not isolationism, and never has been. In fact, it never could have been.
Most historians agree that the very notion of Canadian sovereignty was born out of the two World Wars. Most Canadians felt our sovereingty had been earned in those conflicts, and many of the things that came in the immediate aftermath seem to bear this to be true.
In fact, the Canadian citizenship act wasn't passed until 1946. Prior to that, there was actually no such thing as a Canadian citizenship. Rather, Canadians were generally viewed as citizens of the British empire.
In 1926, between the two wars, Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was instrumental in prompting the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared equality amongst Commonwealth countries.
It simply isn't logical for Red Toryism to be so offended by the notion of a foreign intervention, where necessary, considering that the very element with which it remains so preoccupied -- sovereignty -- was born out of such an intervention.
After all, Canada's involvement in the Second World War didn't end at the German border, nor did it end at the Italian coastline.
The great legacy of that war -- deposing one of history's brutal dictator and preventing the wholesale genocide of Jewish people in Europe -- remains an accomplishment of which all Canadians worthy of the name remain proud.
If Canada hadn't entered the Second World War not only would this legacy never have been achieved, but it's likely that key links between the United States and Britain would never have been forged. Without this support it's unlikely that Britain could have turned away the German attack, and that other preoccupation of so many Red Tories -- distress over ever-closer links between Canada and the United States -- would have come to to pass much, much sooner.
Ironically, Red Toryism never could have come to truly exist if Canada's leaders of the day had thought in the inherently isolationist vein that David Orchard does today.
Orchard also writes in a manner that suggests he believes Canadian forces bombed civilian targets indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Haiti and former Yugoslavia.
But even more concerning is Orchard's equation of Canada's efforts abroad with slavery.
"Military assaults against the poverty stricken farmers of Afghanistan and Haiti, and an Iraqi population struggling for its very survival, are part of a long, barbarous tradition going back to slave ships and colonial resource wars and will some day, I believe, be seen in that context," Orchard writes.
Unfortuantely for Mr Orchard, this is most unequivocally not the case. Should Canadian troops start herding Afghans on to slave galleons and forcing them to row their way across the ocean to pick cotton on plantations, then the war in Afghanistan will be seen in that context.
David Orchard can feel free to hold his breath until that happens if he so wishes. It wouldn't be a very good idea, but he's free to try it.
In the end, it seems, there's a reason why David Orchard is a marginal figure in Canadian political history, who only managed to attain a brief semblance of prominence when the Progressive Conservative party was already on its deathbed.
It's because he's a marginal thinker. Only a marginal thinker could look at the conflict in Afghanistan, look at the government that was deposed there, and see the Amistad.
Only a marginal thinker like David Orchard.
One may wonder if Liberal leader Stephane Dion is disappointed or relieved that David Orchard, his star candidate in Desthene-Missinni-Churchill River riding, has manged to produce so little press coverage.
When the press did bite at that particular worm, it was
In a recent candidates debate in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Orchard talked about what a few of his priorities are.
“One of my priorities is the war,” Orchard announced.
Indeed. Orchard priorities the war so highly that he's decided to join the party that deployed Canadian forces to Afghanistan in the first place, under a leader who was a member of the cabinet that decided to do so.
Orchard's views on the war are far from secret. In February of this year, Orchard published an article on Globalresearch.ca in which he makes some remarkable comments.
Orchard essentially compares Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to slavery, and also attempts to cast doubts on previous humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia and Haiti.
Orchard would likely portray his comments as embodying the concerns with national sovereignty so deeply held within Red Toryism. But apparently Orchard never received the memo that Red Toryism does not condone genocides, such as those being perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic.
Nor does Red Toryism condone unarmed civilians caught in the midst of civil conflicts being left to their own devices.
Nor does Red Toryism condone harbouring terrorists while they plan attacks against foreign countries.
In short, Red Toryism is not isolationism, and never has been. In fact, it never could have been.
Most historians agree that the very notion of Canadian sovereignty was born out of the two World Wars. Most Canadians felt our sovereingty had been earned in those conflicts, and many of the things that came in the immediate aftermath seem to bear this to be true.
In fact, the Canadian citizenship act wasn't passed until 1946. Prior to that, there was actually no such thing as a Canadian citizenship. Rather, Canadians were generally viewed as citizens of the British empire.
In 1926, between the two wars, Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was instrumental in prompting the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared equality amongst Commonwealth countries.
It simply isn't logical for Red Toryism to be so offended by the notion of a foreign intervention, where necessary, considering that the very element with which it remains so preoccupied -- sovereignty -- was born out of such an intervention.
After all, Canada's involvement in the Second World War didn't end at the German border, nor did it end at the Italian coastline.
The great legacy of that war -- deposing one of history's brutal dictator and preventing the wholesale genocide of Jewish people in Europe -- remains an accomplishment of which all Canadians worthy of the name remain proud.
If Canada hadn't entered the Second World War not only would this legacy never have been achieved, but it's likely that key links between the United States and Britain would never have been forged. Without this support it's unlikely that Britain could have turned away the German attack, and that other preoccupation of so many Red Tories -- distress over ever-closer links between Canada and the United States -- would have come to to pass much, much sooner.
Ironically, Red Toryism never could have come to truly exist if Canada's leaders of the day had thought in the inherently isolationist vein that David Orchard does today.
Orchard also writes in a manner that suggests he believes Canadian forces bombed civilian targets indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Haiti and former Yugoslavia.
But even more concerning is Orchard's equation of Canada's efforts abroad with slavery.
"Military assaults against the poverty stricken farmers of Afghanistan and Haiti, and an Iraqi population struggling for its very survival, are part of a long, barbarous tradition going back to slave ships and colonial resource wars and will some day, I believe, be seen in that context," Orchard writes.
Unfortuantely for Mr Orchard, this is most unequivocally not the case. Should Canadian troops start herding Afghans on to slave galleons and forcing them to row their way across the ocean to pick cotton on plantations, then the war in Afghanistan will be seen in that context.
David Orchard can feel free to hold his breath until that happens if he so wishes. It wouldn't be a very good idea, but he's free to try it.
In the end, it seems, there's a reason why David Orchard is a marginal figure in Canadian political history, who only managed to attain a brief semblance of prominence when the Progressive Conservative party was already on its deathbed.
It's because he's a marginal thinker. Only a marginal thinker could look at the conflict in Afghanistan, look at the government that was deposed there, and see the Amistad.
Only a marginal thinker like David Orchard.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Those Who Forget History...
...Are Doomed to Repeat It
Speaking at the University of Alberta yesterday (more coverage of this will be offered at The Nexus in the near future), Stephane Dion took some time out of his pre-campaign stop to question the legality of tomorrow's (seemingly inevitable) election call.
"[Harper] gives a bad example to Canadians by not respecting his own law," Dion insisted. "Some constitutional experts are saying this election will be illegal."
But for his own part, University of Ottawa consititional political historian Michael Behiels isn't quite so eager to agree. "I am not sure [Harper] is a law-breaker," he demurred but suggested that Governor General Michaelle Jean should consider rejecting Harper's request that she dissolve Parliament, reportedly due tomorrow. "If she goes along with him, she, in a sense, is supporting his violation of the law. You're putting the Governor General into a situation that you should never put the Governor General in."
Certainly, when a government passes legislation, one expects that they will respect it. But when one passes a law with loophole this pronounced, one questions the genuity of the act in the first place.
Queen's University constitutional scholar Ned Franks would remind individuals such as Behiels that because the fixed-election law doesn't effect the power of the Governor General to call an election, it sets very little in stone. "The convention is that the Governor General only dissolves Parliament at the request of the prime minister," Franks notes.
And, of course, Behiels is right about one thing: Michaelle Jean certainly could refuse to dissolve Parliament.
However, one would expect that a constitutional political historian would remember the King-Byng affair, wherein then-Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, in the midst of a debate in the House of Commons regarding censure, asked then-Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy for a dissolution of Parliament.
This was, of course, in the midst of a coalition government the Liberal party was sharing with the Progressive party. The Liberal party held a scant 99 seats to the Conservative party's 116. A man with proper respect for Parliament would not have been serving as Prime Minister under such circumstances in the first place.
Byng refused to call the election and instead called upon the Conservative party -- under Arthur Meighen -- to form the government instead. King accused Byng of political interference, and campaigned heavily on the alleged outrage, using the episode to rally Canadian nationalists and anti-Imperialists to his side.
The Liberal party was returned with a majority government in the election.
At the 1926 Imperial Conference, King used the affair to help push through a resolution denoting the Governor General as a representative of the Monarch, as opposed to a representative of the British Imperial government.
Future political developments in Canada -- culminating with the 1982 patriation of the British North America Act -- eventually transformed the Governor General into a purely ceremonial position.
And therein lies the rub.
For Michaelle Jean to decide to refuse to dissolve Parliament -- a decision she clearly has in her power to do -- she would have to make a political decision. But the office of Governor General is not a political office. It's a ceremonial office.
Calling upon Michaelle Jean to refuse to dissolve Parliament is putting the Governor General in a position she should never be in.
One can like it or not like it -- and for the record, this writer doesn't. But the seeming fact remains that nothing in the fixed election law prevents the Governor General from calling an election, and nothing in the fixed election law seems to prevent the Prime Minister from seeking it.
History has already shown us that disingenuous politicians will campaign on the topic of the Governor General if given the opportunity. And what is a politician who tramples his own fixed election legislation, if not disingenuous?
Speaking at the University of Alberta yesterday (more coverage of this will be offered at The Nexus in the near future), Stephane Dion took some time out of his pre-campaign stop to question the legality of tomorrow's (seemingly inevitable) election call.
"[Harper] gives a bad example to Canadians by not respecting his own law," Dion insisted. "Some constitutional experts are saying this election will be illegal."
But for his own part, University of Ottawa consititional political historian Michael Behiels isn't quite so eager to agree. "I am not sure [Harper] is a law-breaker," he demurred but suggested that Governor General Michaelle Jean should consider rejecting Harper's request that she dissolve Parliament, reportedly due tomorrow. "If she goes along with him, she, in a sense, is supporting his violation of the law. You're putting the Governor General into a situation that you should never put the Governor General in."
Certainly, when a government passes legislation, one expects that they will respect it. But when one passes a law with loophole this pronounced, one questions the genuity of the act in the first place.
Queen's University constitutional scholar Ned Franks would remind individuals such as Behiels that because the fixed-election law doesn't effect the power of the Governor General to call an election, it sets very little in stone. "The convention is that the Governor General only dissolves Parliament at the request of the prime minister," Franks notes.
And, of course, Behiels is right about one thing: Michaelle Jean certainly could refuse to dissolve Parliament.
However, one would expect that a constitutional political historian would remember the King-Byng affair, wherein then-Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, in the midst of a debate in the House of Commons regarding censure, asked then-Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy for a dissolution of Parliament.
This was, of course, in the midst of a coalition government the Liberal party was sharing with the Progressive party. The Liberal party held a scant 99 seats to the Conservative party's 116. A man with proper respect for Parliament would not have been serving as Prime Minister under such circumstances in the first place.
Byng refused to call the election and instead called upon the Conservative party -- under Arthur Meighen -- to form the government instead. King accused Byng of political interference, and campaigned heavily on the alleged outrage, using the episode to rally Canadian nationalists and anti-Imperialists to his side.
The Liberal party was returned with a majority government in the election.
At the 1926 Imperial Conference, King used the affair to help push through a resolution denoting the Governor General as a representative of the Monarch, as opposed to a representative of the British Imperial government.
Future political developments in Canada -- culminating with the 1982 patriation of the British North America Act -- eventually transformed the Governor General into a purely ceremonial position.
And therein lies the rub.
For Michaelle Jean to decide to refuse to dissolve Parliament -- a decision she clearly has in her power to do -- she would have to make a political decision. But the office of Governor General is not a political office. It's a ceremonial office.
Calling upon Michaelle Jean to refuse to dissolve Parliament is putting the Governor General in a position she should never be in.
One can like it or not like it -- and for the record, this writer doesn't. But the seeming fact remains that nothing in the fixed election law prevents the Governor General from calling an election, and nothing in the fixed election law seems to prevent the Prime Minister from seeking it.
History has already shown us that disingenuous politicians will campaign on the topic of the Governor General if given the opportunity. And what is a politician who tramples his own fixed election legislation, if not disingenuous?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)