Initially published in the Alliston Herald on December 12, 2008
Fifteen years from now our children, whether they be in high school or a first year political science course, will learn of the constitutional "crisis" of 2008.
The provocateur of the crisis will undoubtedly be identified as Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper foolishly, in what can only be described as a game of silly partisan "gotcha", sought to eliminate the current system of funding for political parties and thereby deliver a potentially crippling blow to the opposition.
Commentator Rex Murphy perhaps said it best when he described Harper as being three-quarters effective national leader with the other-quarter being a "partisan troll" which "...periodically smothers every decent instinct in him."
If, as it seems to some, Harper is a student of Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th Century Italian political philosopher whose name is synonymous with ruthless politics, it would appear that he overlooked one of Machiavelli's critical lessons. Machiavelli advised that if you must harm a rival, make certain to destroy him lest he be left strong enough to rise up and exact revenge.
Now, I'm not aware of anyone who actually believes the opposition claims that the coalition is all about the economy. Nonsense! The issue that served to unite these parties was, first and foremost, the elimination of the funding. On this issue I would have far preferred (I continue to be delusional in my expectation that politicians act with honesty and integrity) that the opposition acknowledge the real reason for their actions.
The concept of a coalition is entirely permissible in the context of our parliamentary democracy. As such, the hysterical cries by some that a coalition is a "coup" are truly absurd. Indeed, in 2004 Harper entered into detailed discussions with both the NDP and Bloc Quebecois with the same objective in mind. In fact, Harper specifically acknowledged the legitimacy of such an arrangement in a letter to the Governor General. It was not undemocratic then. It is certainly not undemocratic now.
There were, however, a couple of major problems with the notion of a coalition. First, the leader, Stephane Dion, seemed completely incapable of inspiring confidence in his ability to lead. Even when he had a seemingly distraught Stephen Harper in Question Period on the Monday following the coalition announcement, he did nothing to instill confidence in the public that "this is OK." When he faced an invigorated Harper the following day he more closely resembled a tub of incomprehensible goo. Public opinion seemed to turn dramatically thereafter.
Quite simply, the thought that Stephane Dion would be Prime Minister so soon after a rather clear defeat in the General Election was a source of discomfort for many Canadians including myself.
From the cycnical perspective, what is worrisome is that the battle digressed into one of public relations and spin with some, including one writer on these pages, actually buying into the hysteria and frenzy and irrationally concluding that the coalition was equivalent to a coup that should be considered as treason and would lead to the destruction of our democracy.
We are all in trouble if some members of the public are so gullible to believe that a legitimate exercise of rights by parties under our 141 year old democracy will lead to doomsday.
