Another proroguish thought

[sabotabby]

I'm disappointed that she let Harper suspend Parliament but I'd like to extend a theory that Michaëlle Jean was actually acting in a progressive manner.

See, the idea of a Governor General* is a bit fucked up, even if I generally like Jean, and Adrienne Clarkson. It's basically "yeah, you plebes can elect whomever you like, but inbred overseas royalty still gets the final say, and if you get too rowdy about your democracy, we'll bring the smackdown." Of course in real life it doesn't work that way because obviously people would fucking flip. But the fact is that the institution is still there and the potential remains.

Which means that in a situation like this, she has the unenviable choice of doing whatever the government currently in power wants—as reactionary and boneheaded as it is—or standing up for what's technically right but in doing so setting a bad precedent for future interventions. I mean, we don't want a representative of the monarchy to actually act like a representative of the monarchy, do we?

I haven't thought this out too hard so I welcome different readings of the situation.

Who is going to the rally on Saturday?

* Or at least a Governor General with actual political power; if you need to pay someone to attend arts galas and benefits and give speeches I guess that's okay.

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Although technically the GG is the representative of the monarch, the post hasn't functioned that way for decades. The GG does not consult with London when faced with decisions like the proroguement. I don't like the current set up where the PM 'owns' the GG. It means all the power of the monarch is vested in the PM so where are the checks and balances? I can see two possible solutions:

1. Keep the GG but make sure the incumbent is a highly experienced elder statesperson not a photogenic celebrity assorted minorities token.

2. Vest the constitutional powers of the GG in the Supreme Court.

I think yesterday's decision was awful. The Commons should only be prorogued with the consent of the Commons. The last time the monarch did this was almost 400 years ago and it led to civil war.

[ltmurnau.livejournal.com]

Good points.
Your Solution #1 is the way things used to be, until the 1970s or so when it started to become more of a patronage payoff post. But I wouldn't look for anyone to turn the clock back on this one.
I'm not sure Solution #2 is a good one either: our Supreme Court judges are appointed by Government too, and while Canada is a country under the rule of law, its people may not like to be so explicitly ruled by lawyers - the Court's decisions on a number of things in the past have eroded a lot of trust in that institution. And it was a Supreme Court decision (5-4, but still) that handed the American people the first term of George W. Bush.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I would have that public confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada was quite high. Which decisions do you consider to "have eroded a lot of trust"?

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

I guess it's Conservatives that would not go along with the Supreme Court being the body of last resort in this case...

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

The problem with that is that in a Parliamentary democracy (and I get the impression the basic idea in Canada is pretty similar to the UK, except you have the Q's rep instead of the Q herself. And you don't have an appointed upper house, do you?), it is Parliament that is sovereign. Not the PM. So one could argue that closing down Parliament early is in fact the 'activist' line, as she is shutting down the sovereign democratic institution. In effect, lining up behind a mini-autogolpe by Harper. The passive, do-nothing approach could be argued to be to let things take their course, and let Parliament decide the fate of the PM, as is their job.

It's a very interesting situation. It's very rare (in Britain certainly, and I get the impression in Canada too) to get a situation where the PM has lost the support of Parliament other than through an election (itself pretty rare), and there is an alternative government which does have such support waiting. This is the sort of thing you want elected mostly-figurehead Presidents for.

Hopefully though a couple of months of arseing around and not solving the crisis will lose Harper enough support that if there is another election he'll lose.

D'you think the Libs and the NDP might make some sort of electoral pact in the event of an election to avoid handing things to Harper on a minority vote again?

[srk1.livejournal.com]

And you don't have an appointed upper house, do you?

It does. The Canadian Senate is appointed by the GG on the advice of the PM.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

D'you think the Libs and the NDP might make some sort of electoral pact in the event of an election to avoid handing things to Harper on a minority vote again?

No.

Around 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien passed a law where he capped corporate donations to $1000 per party per year ("per party" includes all donations to individuals of this party, so he effectiveley killed off legal corporate political funding), but in exchange, introduced a $1.75 (now $1.95, it's indexed to inflation I believe) per vote annual subsidy.

The event that started this whole crisis, more than the lack of economic plan, is Harper's intended project of cancelling public this public subsidy, because his party has managed to erect a fantastic fundraising machine that's unmatched by the other parties (except somewhat by the NDP, who has always depended on multiple individual donors, and which has been brought into the 21st century by Jack Layton, much before the vaunted Howard Dean campaign) and that doesn't need political funding to survive. Ironically, the Liberals, who have introduced this, have had trouble making the switch from a corporate to an individual fundraising base, and would have been killed off by Harper's measure.

So the situation this creates is that if the Liberals and the NDP conclude an electoral pact where they don't oppose each other in many ridings, they will invariably lose a fair chunk of their public subsidy. The NDP went to such lengths as to plaster a riding with tons of candidate-free NDP signs where they had repudiated their candidate, but since this had been done after the deadline, the candidate (and party name) was still on the ballot.

Also, Layton, just like Harper, is quite intent on destroying the Liberal party to take its place as the official opposition and one day take power. This seems far-fetched, but Layton, combined with Harper's own efforts, and former PM Paul Martin's ineptitude in handling the sponsorship crisis, have done quite some damage to the Liberal brand.

I mean, it's happened before, see Canada, 1993 Election.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

As a citizen of that other monarchy who happens to share a monarch with you, I think she was behaving exactly like a representative of the monarchy. The Queen has *never* behaved in any way other than as the govt in power wants. If she did there would be a constitutional crisis and she would find herself without a crown pretty damn quickly. Much as I dislike a monarchy in principle, I'm not in any illusions that it wields any real power.

(ETA: Political power. Obviously the Crown is quite rich, as is HM herself, and that's one kind of power.)

[srk1.livejournal.com]

In 1975 there was a constitutional crisis in Australia when the Governor-General John Kerr dismissed the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and installed a new PM with the instruction to dissolve parliament and call an immediate election. Parliament passed a vote of confidence in Whitlam but Kerr refused to acknowledge it until after the dissolution.

This was after the Senate had refused to pass the Government's budget, which had the effect of blocking its access to Treasury funds, a no confidence vote in all but name, which would ordinarily be followed by a dissolution of parliament. Whitlam refused to resign or call an election so Kerr dismissed him after taking legal advice. (There was also a suggestion that Whitlam might pre-empt Kerr by advising the Queen to remove him as Governor General.)

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

I am aware of this-- I was speaking about the UK, and that the Canadian GG is indeed behaving as the Queen does in the UK. What goes on in Australia is beside the point.

[srk1.livejournal.com]

It's to the point, because it demonstrates that there is a precedent for the Queen's representative acting against the wishes of the Government, without creating a terminal crisis for the monarchy. There are far greater parallels between the respective constitutions of Australia and Canada than Canada and the UK.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

Oh, certainly it's relevant to the situation; I'm just responding to sabotabby's point about the GG's behaviour being unlike that of HM herself.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

As problematic as the monarchy is, I do like Prince Phillips independence to say whatever the fuck he wants even much of it is pretty retrograde. I was watching a documentary on the monarchy on PBS where he visited the Hussars in Iraq and talked smack about G.W. Bush and America on camera every chance he got, I was pretty floored by that though it probably comes out of petty and nationalistic motives.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

I do think if he had been in charge rather than his missus we'd have had a republic years ago. :)

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

Well, what did you people think was going to happen when you asked permission to become a nation instead of just blowing shit up the American way?

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

I know you're just having fun, but I'll still address your rhetorical question at face value:

We avoided building a state on a mythology of violence and gun ownership that led to a civil war later on, the most murderous conflict this planet had known up to that point.

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

Eh, all those civil war guys would have been dead by now anyway. At least our government can't be dismantled by the representative of an aging monarch who doesn't even have control of her own country.

[culpster.livejournal.com]

I'm taking solace (refuge?) in the fact that the general outrage, if you can hear past the real boneheads and dupes, amounts to 'throw them all in a pit and start from scratch.' I sometimes delude myself otherwise, so this is tonic. People ARE fucking flipping.

I have the demo in my book, but man - I'm waffling. Can I more than passively support a coalition led by a man who, with SO much at stake, chooses to communicate through a handicam with the auto focus broken, operated by his buddy? I mean there's DIY and then there's the Liberal Party of Canada. We'll see how late I get home.

[culpster.livejournal.com]

Can I add that every argument against coalition I've heard from NDP supporters has been in the bonehead/dupe column? 'The NDP will never achieve socialism now' - mmmmm, smell that coffee, and anyway what's YOUR plan? Scream until daddy stops the car? (Hmmmmmmm)

[culpster.livejournal.com]

Everyone ELSE's argument I mean. MY argument is incredibly sound.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

I am dismayed by your lack of commitment to DIY production values ;)

[ltmurnau.livejournal.com]

I think the GG has set a bad precedent: from now on, any Prime Minister who feels his government is on shaky ground can go to the GG to ask for prorogation, suspending the game of Parliament while he continues to rule.

This time around, the suspension will be until late January, around Budget Day. Maybe next time it will be for six or seven months... and there will be a next time.

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

Adrienne Clarkson is a good gardener :P.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Is it Committee of Public Safety time yet?

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

YES!!