Stephen Harper's not-so-benign dictatorship
macksamillion
Ottawa Citizen Special / December 31, 2009
Stephen Harper's not-so-benign dictatorship
It seems Stephen Harper, our not-so-benign dictator, can't stand Canada's constitutional
democracy. He is fed up with Parliament's restrictions on the almost unlimited power of
his office and his executive.
Harper has, again, spoken with the Governor General and requested the prorogation of
Parliament, this time until he is ready to bring down his government's budget in early
March 2010.
It seems Harper is determined to attend the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver without
having to face constant criticism from those pesky and "disloyal" opposition parties and
Liberal senators. Best to put Parliament on ice.
After the budget, I am certain Harper will then pay the GG another visit requesting that
Micha�lle Jean drop the writ for yet another election, the third election since he took
office in 2006. And this from a prime minister who brought in a fixed-election-date law
that he will then have broken twice.
In 1997 Stephen Harper and Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan published a long article
titled "Our benign dictatorship" on a U.S. blog site called A Step to the Right. Harper,
disillusioned with Preston Manning's weak leadership style and the Reform party's failure
to gain traction with increasing numbers of conservative-minded Canadian voters, had
resigned as an MP to take on the presidency of the National Citizens Coalition.
Harper and Flanagan, in their desperate search for a politically successful conservative
party, lashed out at successive Liberal governments' seemingly endless benign dictatorship
over Parliament and the Ottawa bureaucracy. Their contention was: "Although we like to
think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead, in something little
better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a
one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany
any such system. Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out
of step with other aspects of society."
Irony of ironies, their critique can and should now be thrown back into their faces. Prime
Minister Harper is challenging the constitutional powers of Parliament by systematically
denying MPs access to uncensored papers and documents, as well as the MPs' rights to call
any and all persons to testify before parliamentary committees.
It is becoming patently obvious Harper now presides over a minority government that can
all-too-readily be characterized as a not-so-benign dictatorship. Harper successfully
exploits the first-past-the-post electoral system -- which he and Flanagan denounced as
immature -- and the ideological and political divisions within the opposition parties, to
impose his unflinching will on his cabinet, caucus, and what he characterizes as an
utterly dysfunctional House of Commons, one made so by the government itself. With his
appointment of yet more Conservatives to the Senate, Harper will exercise full and
unfettered power over Parliament, a power which he will readily use to cow the judicial
branch of government with his so-called tough-on-crime legislation.
In late 2008, Harper bullied a weak and badly informed Governor General into granting him
a prorogation. Several constitutional scholars have declared his reckless but highly
effective request unconstitutional.
Now he's doing it again. Why? Harper wants to ensure that his appointment of Conservative
senators goes into effect immediately. And, just as importantly, he wants to bring quick
closure to the work of the parliamentary committee, supported by a growing public outcry,
that is investigating his government's handling of the Afghan prisoners of war affair.
Indeed, it is clear that Harper will engage opposition MPs, senators and Canadian citizens
in a constitutional war over the prerogatives of Parliament, a war that he and his cabinet
are determined to win at virtually any price to our constitutional democracy and its
hallowed institutions.
Harper has maligned several very senior and very competent bureaucrats who dared to
question, criticize, or oppose his government's questionable policies. These include
former Military Police Complaints Commission chairman Peter Tinsley, RCMP complaints
commission chairman Paul Kennedy, former Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president
Linda Keen, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand,
and former Immigration and Refugee Board chairman Jean-Guy Fleury, to name only the best
known.
The most recent casualty in Harper's dirty war against his political enemies is evident in
his government's blatant attempts to destroy of reputation of former diplomat Richard
Colvin. Why? A courageous Mr. Colvin, much to his credit, revealed the full import of the
Harper government's questionable policy pertaining to the treatment of Afghan prisoners of
war taken by the Canadian Forces.
Following cabinet's directives, these PoWs were handed over unconditionally to the Afghan
National Army and police without oversight and, some witnesses argue, with full knowledge
that they would be brutally tortured. Now Harper rejects all reasonable requests for a
formal inquiry and castigates his critics, including Canadian citizens who denounce his
policy in this matter, as anti-Canadian Taliban sympathizers.
Harper's continued use of such bold, provocative and intimidating tactics proves that he
is morally convinced that the end -- unfettered power for his Conservative party and
government and the wholesale destruction of the centrist Liberal party -- justifies the
means.
Canadians must encourage their parliamentarians to fight for their rights in order to
ensure the preservation and health of Canada's constitutional democracy. Harper and his
executive are not above the Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is the supreme law of
Canada. The guarantors of our Constitution -- the executive, legislative and judicial
branches of government and Canadian citizens, have a responsibility to uphold the
Constitution. If the legislative branch is rendered powerless by Harper's executive
branch, Canadians have no choice but to defend their Constitution by taking their struggle
to the Supreme Court of Canada.
If the Supreme Court fails to defend the rights of Parliament and Canadians, then every
Canadian has the responsibility to exercise his/her full sovereignty via the ballot box.
**********************
[Michael D. Behiels is University Research Chair of Canadian Federalism and Constitutional
Studies at the University of Ottawa.]
AntiSpin
>Constitutional Studies at the University of Ottawa.
>It is becoming patently obvious Harper now presides over a minority
>government that can all-too-readily be characterized as a not-so-benign
>dictatorship. Harper successfully exploits the first-past-the-post
electoral >system -- which he and Flanagan denounced as immature -- and the
>ideological and political divisions within the opposition parties, to
impose >his unflinching will on his cabinet, caucus, and what he
characterizes as an >utterly dysfunctional House of Commons, one made so by
the >government itself. With his appointment of yet more Conservatives to
the >Senate, Harper will exercise full and unfettered power over
Parliament, a >power which he will readily use to cow the judicial branch
of government >with his so-called tough-on-crime legislation.
First, let me be clear. Harper's continued use - or misuse - of
parliamentary procedures to prorogue Parliament is cowardly and cynical.
Harper ought to have simply faced his critics or called an election. The
Colvin/Detainee issue had runs it course and could not get any worse. Harper
did not require a throne speech to layout a new budgetary direction.
Is there no line or principle Harper won't cross?
However, Michael Behiels diatribe against Stephen Harper is hyperbole and
bombast, all sound and fury, signifying nothing, to misquote the Bard.
Behiels's comments are a manifestation of the "be scared of Stephen Harper
theme" we've all seen before. We don't have to be scared of what Harper
might do, we should already be scared because of what he's done!
1) That Harper presides over a benign dictatorship. This is a poor analogy.
A dictatorship implies Harper rules absolutely, either alone, or with the
support of the military, legislature and/or judiciary. None of which is
true. The truth is that Harper is barely in control of his own lunch menu.
Think of the logic - if Harper was in control of his the agenda, would he
have really needed to prorogue Parliament? Harper is not in control of his
own fate legislatively, of the committee system or in the Senate. Harper
relies exclusively on the self-interest of the Liberal, Bloc and New
Democratic parties to maintain his minority government. The government must
either compromise or use divisions within the Opposition to get its laws
passed. The recent example of the opposition passing a motion to force the
government to reveal what it knew about the detainee issue is a prime
example. The parliamentary circus "investigating" the detainee question
another. Or the previous committee "investigating" the
Mulroney/Schreiber/Airbus issue, is yet another. Or the recent legislation
concerning the long-gun registry which several Liberals and NDP MPs voted
for. This is not to say that Harper isn't politically astute or able to take
advantage of an opportunity - like a naive, bull-headed new party leader for
example - but this is hardly a crime in politics.
2) Behiels claims Harper successfully exploits the first-past-the-post
electoral system. This is crock from the first word. Each member of
Parliament has successfully exploited the first past the post electoral
system, it's how they became MPs. In ridings where there are three
candidates, a candidate only needs 33.1% of the votes to be proclaimed the
winner. In a riding where 5 candidates vie for the position, 20.1%. It is a
rarity in Canada for an MP to win an election with better than 50% of the
vote. Only twice since 1945 has a party won an election with more than 50%
of the vote (1949 and 1958) and not once since the advent of the NDP as a
federal party in 1962. In the 1997 election, the Liberals won only 38.5% of
the votes but 51.5% of the seats. The pluraity system has its flaws, but it
treats every candidate and every party equally on election day.
3) Behiels also claims Harper exploits the divisions within the Opposition
to his benefit. It's absurd to think that any prime minister, regardless of
ideological persuasion, NOT taking advantage of divisions with the
Opposition. Jean Chr�tien, the former Liberal Prime Minister, won three
majority governments on precisely this basis when the political right in
Canada was fractured and battling each other. Does anyone really think
Chretien needed an election in 1997 or was he just taking advantage of a new
Reform leader? Politics is blood sport, and pitting your opponents against
one another is a well accepted political tactic.
5) As for imposing his will on cabinet and caucus....what prime minister
hasn't? Even in Pierre Trudeau's governments, where Trudeau relied on a
remarkably lack management style, his ministers and MPs knew who the boss
was and their careers lived and died by his hand. Given how much leeway
Harper has given MacKay - allowing him to swing with enough rope - on the
Colvin file demonstrates that Harper has actually relaxed his gripped on
cabinet members. Ditto Flarhety, Clement, Prentice, Baird ect. Besides,
wouldn't you want Harper to have tight control over the bozos in the Tory
party? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
6) Appointing more Tories to the Senate will not give Harper "unfettered
power over Parliament," as Behiels thinks and for several reasons. As noted
above, Harper does not control his own legislative agenda or parliamentary
committees and he only nominally controls the next election date. As for
the Senate, it has a remarkable way of doing what it wants regardless of
which party has the majority of seats. The idea of a job-for-life Senator
beholden to a Prime Minister is more myth than reality. And let's face it,
Behiels citizens Harper for doing exactly what Liberal leaders have done
previously. It's academic and ideological hypocrisy at its best. In short,
when Liberals do it, it's ok, when Tories do it, however, it's bad. In
reality, the only way that Harper could come close to the "unfettered" power
that Behiel's fears is if Harper won a majority government. And even then,
"unfettered" is more hyperbole than reality.
7) Behiels also claims that Harper will next "cow the judicial branch of
government with his so-called tough-on-crime legislation." Is that the one
that just died on the order paper? The one that has been tabled three times
now and will likely die a fourth death come the next election? Or perhaps
Behiels has not heard of Judge John Keast or Justice Marc Rosenberg, both of
whom have recently argued at length against mandatory sentencing and have
clearly demonstrated that the judiciary is willing to do something about it.
Despite his academic credentials, Behiels is speaking as an ideological
opponent of Harper's and not as a scholar, and sadly, Behiel's comments
reflect it.
Pete
> First, let me be clear. Harper's continued use - or misuse - of
> parliamentary procedures to prorogue Parliament is cowardly and cynical.
> Harper ought to have simply faced his critics or called an election. The
> Colvin/Detainee issue had runs it course and could not get any worse. Harper
> did not require a throne speech to layout a new budgetary direction.
>
>
>
> Is there no line or principle Harper won't cross?
>
Harper's prorogue of Parliament isn't all that unusual.
Prime Minister King did it for 18 months, and it was a regualar occasion in
Ontario back in the mid 20th century, in Canada's most populace place,
Ontario.
And when the PM of Canada asks for a prorogue from the Gov. Gen, it's a
"given". Though the last one was suspicious, this one is less strange and
meets the standards of our political history.
The one last year was a bunch of bullshit. This one? According to Poly
Sci. Professors, it's not out of the realm of normality.
For instance, if Liberal MP Bob Rae complains, he's a hypocrite.
He prorogue'd the legislature of Ontario for 18 months.
Roy
==
Holy shit "AntiSpin", that is an excellent posting...I have
underestimated you. You are not a dork after all.
==
PB
wrote:
> Ottawa Citizen Special / December 31, 2009
>
> Stephen Harper's not-so-benign dictatorship
>
> It seems Stephen Harper, our not-so-benign dictator, can't stand Canada's constitutional
> democracy. He is fed up with Parliament's restrictions on the almost unlimited power of
> his office and his executive.
> Harper has, again, spoken with the Governor General and requested the prorogation of
> Parliament, this time until he is ready to bring down his government's budget in early
> March 2010.
>
> It seems Harper is determined to attend the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver without
> having to face constant criticism from those pesky and "disloyal" opposition parties and
> Liberal senators. Best to put Parliament on ice.
>
> After the budget, I am certain Harper will then pay the GG another visit requesting that
Hypocrisy and double standards in partisan politics ? Alert the
media !!!
What a scoop, a story. A scandal really.
If Iggy and his merry band of dysfunctional Liberals were in power,
they'd be doing the same thing after being elected on criticizing the
excessive power in the hands of the PMO.
Le plus ca change. The only thing this city manufactures is jaw
dropping bullshit.
AntiSpin
"Pete" <pete...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25a8b6a4f...@News.Individual.NET...
I agree that prorogation is a legitimate parliamentary tactic. But using it
a second time to avoid parliament in a year is cowardly, wouldn't you agree,
regardless of the party in power?