Quote:
Our coalition doesn't stack up
Canada's much-debated alternative government doesn't compare well to properly formed coalitions in other countries
By Richard Van LoonJanuary 7, 2009 10:03 AM
While the furore has abated somewhat with the appointment and subsequent near disappearance of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader, the coalition agreement to replace the Conservative government remains formally in place, and the debate continues.
On one side, those opposing the coalition have trumpeted its illegitimacy on the grounds that Canadians voted to keep Stephen Harper as prime minister, albeit with distinctly limited enthusiasm. Canadians certainly did not, the opponents say, vote for this coalition. The co-operation of the avowedly separatist Bloc Québécois has deeply troubled many critics. Even within the Liberal party itself, doubts about the arrangement have been strong. And certainly Canadian voters, even Liberal voters, have not had the opportunity to vote for any government led by Mr. Ignatieff.
Proponents of the coalition cite the fact that, in early December at least, the PM had clearly lost the confidence of the House, and that only 37.7 per cent of those voting in the 2008 election had voted Conservative as opposed to 43.8 per cent for the two formal coalition partners and 53.8 per cent if the Bloc voters are included. The formal legitimacy of coalitions in the Westminster and virtually all other forms of democratic government is often cited, as is the fact that strictly speaking only about 38,500 voters in Calgary Southwest actually cast ballots with Stephen Harper's name on them. The legitimacy of the coalition is further buttressed in the eyes of its supporters by its willingness to put forward ideas to deal with the current economic recession.
Yet the coalition is not popular with Canadians. In polls soon after the coalition was put forward, 60 per cent of Canadians were opposed to its taking power, and Stephen Harper maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Michael Ignatieff in polls this week as the best person to be prime minister.
In taking Prime Minister Harper's advice to prorogue Parliament, thus effectively rejecting the coalition at least for the time being, Governor General Michaëlle Jean was clearly in line with public opinion if not that of some parliamentary experts and commentators.
Although it is not yet formally dead, the coalition may die either immediately when Michael Ignatieff emerges from hiding or, more likely, if the Harper government can cobble together an economic statement which at least marginally satisfies the Liberals and avoids any further shots amidships of the opposition parties' financial interests.
But should it die so untried and so soon? At first glance I was inclined to say no. But when you look at how coalitions are formed and take power in other democracies, Westminster parliamentary and otherwise, the answer is unequivocally, yes.
Coalitions are a common feature of many European systems and they are not unknown in Westminster parliamentary democracies. They are usually underlain by some form of proportional representation but, much more importantly, voters generally have a good idea that they are voting for a potential coalition partner and, with occasional exceptions, they have a pretty clear idea of what the coalition will look like if the partners are given a mandate.
The 2006 Swedish election is a good example to consider, particularly since it, like the current Canadian coalition but unlike most other coalitions, is not led by the party with the most seats or the plurality of the popular vote in the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag. The current government is a four-party coalition called "The Alliance for Sweden" led by the Moderate Party. The Social Democratic Party, Sweden's long time governing party, actually polled 35 per cent of the vote and won 129 seats compared to the Moderate Party's 26.2 percent and 93 seats. However the Social Democratic prime minister quickly concluded that he would not be able to govern even with the support of minor parties which normally supported his party, and so he resigned and the Alliance took power.
So far this sounds a bit like the Canadian situation, but there is a major difference even aside from the un-Harper-like willingness of prime minister Goran Persson to quickly cede power. The Alliance coalition was formed and developed a platform two years before the election. And while the partners maintained their separate identities -- three of them even publishing their own manifestoes -- it was perfectly clear to Swedish voters that they were voting for a coalition if they voted for members of any of the four Alliance parties. By contrast, Canadian voters in 2008 had no inkling that they might be voting for one. The operative principle is an electorate informed about the possibilities before the vote, and that is the reason Persson so quickly ceded defeat.
In other European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Ireland or Italy, voters know that a coalition is likely and they generally have a good idea of probable member parties. The normal consequence is that the party with the plurality of votes and seats (since these are proportional representation systems that result is usually guaranteed) form a coalition with one or more sympathetic minority parties and the result, unless one lives in Italy, is often a stable government until the next scheduled election.
Both Australia and New Zealand have had coalition governments. In Australia, the Liberal Party has been in a virtually permanent coalition with the much smaller National Party, the National Party leader holding the position of deputy prime minister in the last coalition government. Government alternates between that coalition and the Labour Party. In practice, while the Liberals and the National Party run separate campaigns, the arrangement is so stable that most analysts tend to treat Australia as essentially a two-party system at the national level. However, for our purposes the important point is that voters always have a clear idea what they are voting for.
New Zealand has had several coalition governments as far back as the 1930s and they have sometimes been controversial. After the 1996 election, the National Party which had a plurality of seats in Parliament bolstered a tenuous hold on power by a coalition with the anti-immigration New Zealand First Party, a coalition which eventually disintegrated.
This coalition was formed after the election, the first held under a new mixed-member proportional system, and it would be fair to say that voters did not know that it was likely.
Prior to the next election in 1999, the Labour Party, recognizing the probable impact of the new proportional representation system, came to a public agreement with the smaller Alliance Party that they would form a coalition, and so it was viewed as legitimate and was supported by other minor parties following the election. Labour Party prime minister Helen Clark then led three consecutive coalition governments, although her coalition partners changed over time.
Arrangements known in advance proved more stable and legitimate than one formed after the election. But even in the latter case, the lead party in the coalition had a plurality in Parliament, something which does not apply in the Canadian case.
Both Britain and Canada have had coalition governments during wartime but these have been in response to dire national emergencies and have been led by the party with a plurality or, more often, a majority in the House of Commons.
So what really makes a coalition legitimate?
International precedents suggest three conditions. One is that the country faces a compelling national emergency, usually a major war. A second, broadly applicable in less troubled times, is that voters must know in advance that they are voting for potential members of a coalition, one which will govern if its members can claim a majority of seats in the legislature immediately after the election. A third is that a party with a plurality, already in government or immediately after an election, forms the coalition and immediately seeks support of the legislature. But as the New Zealand experience in the late 1990s suggests the latter is not always a successful strategy. Stable coalitions in peacetime are virtually always underpinned by the results of an election in which voters were aware of the possibility of their formation.
The current coalition agreement in Canada does not meet any of these tests. While it may be formally possible under the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy, it is not democratically legitimate and it does not meet international standards. If Stephen Harper's government proves not to have the confidence of the House, the Governor General should dissolve Parliament.
Richard Van Loon is former president of Carleton University and is now professor emeritus at Carleton's Graduate School of Public Policy. He is co-author of The Canadian Political System.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/today ... story.html
Active Member 
