Stephen Harper bashes religious and political protocol
Lately, Stephen Harper has committed two sins against protocol. One matters to the country, the other only to a few religious citizens.
I have been debating writing about the strange incident of the disappearing communion wafer (properly called “the host”) during the funeral service for former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc. I think most Canadians will accept the view of Vancouver Sun commentator Barbara Yaffe that it doesn’t really matter. But as (I think it is safe to assume) the only federal leader who recently finished a course in “The Eucharist,” I thought it would be worth at least explaining why what the Prime Minister did at the funeral was sacrilegious.
I had not realized how bizarre the communion offense was until I saw it on video. I thought the furor was based on the simple reality that a non-Roman Catholic may not (no, never) receive communion in a Roman Catholic mass. I remember when former Governor General Adrianne Clarkson caused some consternation when receiving communion in a Catholic mass. She’s Anglican, as am I, and although we understand the same meaning of receiving the Eucharist as a Roman Catholic would, each church has its own rules and to be respectful, you respect those rules. While you must be a confirmed Roman Catholic to receive communion in a Roman Catholic service, the Anglican Church offers communion to anyone confirmed as a Christian in any denomination.
For the non-Christian, Harper’s remark that he has “never refused” Communion might sound sensible. It is worth noting that there are approximately 2,000 different versions of Christianity, of which Roman Catholicism is one of the most prominent. There are small shades of difference between all of these faiths. The fact that no one briefed the Prime Minster that he should have approached the presiding bishop with arms folded, indicating he was not to receive, shows that the current PMO is weak on protocol. To Roman Catholics it could have been offensive, but it is for them to complain. I think it unlikely that if the PM had worn shoes in a mosque or forgotten a yarmulke in a synagogue that so many would assume the offence was trifling. His cover was that he is (after all) a Christian, so where’s the problem?
What I found bizarre on seeing the video was that he did not participate in the communion as any Christian would. To explain how appalling his receiving of the Eucharist appeared in video, forgive me for backing up to explain the significance of communion. Most people will know that the wafer (or bread) symbolizes the body of Christ. For the Roman Catholic Church it is more literally the body through transubstantiation. The wine received represents Christ’s blood. But let’s back up further and look at what the living Jesus was doing at the Last Supper. For every Gospel, but John’s, the Last Supper was a traditional Passover feast. Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish and the Passover meal ritual then, as now, begins with the breaking of the bread. The bread is first blessed, and then broken and shared. The Scriptural verbs that mark a sharing of bread in the communion sense are “take, bless, break, give, eat.” Jesus was using well-known rituals of Jewish liturgical experience to reinforce his message: remember me. In all of these experiences, the meal is shared. Those who receive, eat. And they do so as part of the ritual. The Eucharist is not a “take out” item.
In all Christian faiths, the receiving of Communion is participatory. Those receiving eat the bread or wafer immediately, usually with head bowed, standing or kneeling before the officiating priest or minister.
But Stephen Harper did not do that. He clearly accepted the host, his hand dropping to his side, where the fate of the host was obscured by the programme of the mass. Senator Kinsella says he saw him eat it later. No matter. By not receiving in that moment, his behaviour was sacrilege. So, once again, who would care? Roman Catholics, maybe. Other practicing Christians, maybe. I found it offensive, but that’s just me. And, as Barbara Yaffe says, it does not really matter.
A few days earlier the Prime Minister had shown contempt for a different matter of protocol. And while this one really matters it has received far less media coverage. I discovered it on a blog. I reproduce Susan Delacourt’s blog below:
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/07/at-ease-canadians.html
by Susan Delacourt
At ease, Canadians
Early into his first term as Prime Minister, Stephen Harper mused aloud about how he wished Canadian reporters would stand when he entered the room. I believe the collective reply to this musing had something to do with weather forecasts and the temperature in hell.
But yesterday, on Canada Day, Global TV news showed us how Harper managed to get the military to give him a salute that's normally reserved for the Governor-General. As Heritage Minister James Moore explains in the video, this was something that the Prime Minister apparently wanted.
So if you do run across our Tim Horton's, hockey-dad, regular-guy PM this summer on the barbecue circuit, give him a little salute. Or stand up, or something. He really seems to appreciate deference.
(Since that posting, the Global TV clip has been removed).
OK. Now that is quite wrong. I detail in my book Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy how Stephen Harper has wanted to ape a Presidential style. He has wanted his own more imperial greeting area for foreign dignitaries. PMO began plans for their own media centre where they could, in the style of the U.S. White House, control the order of questioners. This Prime Minister seems to chafe with his role as mere Head of Government allowing the Queen to be Head of State, with the Queen’s representative, the Governor General, receiving the honours due a monarch in her stead.
Stepping forward to receive a royal salute on Canada Day may seem like a trifle, but it is a radical departure from the principles of a parliamentary democracy, a constitutional monarchy. And we have James Moore’s word for it that this was no simple slip of protocol. It was planned and demanded by the Prime Minister.
It is that breach of protocol that should not pass unnoticed. It speaks of a Prime Minister who has no grip on the history of the country he presumes to govern. The notion of a Prime Minister is “first among equals.” He is merely the first minister of the Crown. He is in service to the Crown and, more accurately, the people. He is not the Monarch.
So, now I am wondering if he was late to two G-8 photo ops in a row just to make the point: Who is really important here? Not the church, not the Queen, not those other leaders.
I think we have a problem.
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Français
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
Harper: Incremental Creep
Wow. Thanks, Elizabeth, for sharing your observations with us. And thanks to Susan Delacourt for initially writing about this incredible breach of protocol. For a Prime Minister to demand the military pay him the respect normally due to a Head of State is not only appalling, but a little bit scary as well. It begs the question, "Just who the heck does Stephen Harper think he is?". I think that a number of us have been having difficulty with that question for some time now, and when we go to try to answer it, we’re left quite disturbed.
This reminds me of an event which occurred last December, during the "Coalition Crisis", when Federal Minister of Transport, John Baird, responded to questions about what the Conservatives might do if the Governor General refused to prorogue parliament. Baird told the people of Canada that the Conservative government had the right to set aside the will of parliament and go over the head of the Governor General. Since hearing about that episode, I’ve been growing increasingly concerned regarding the sort of power which the Conservatives believe that they are entitled to.
We’ll never know what might have happened if the G-G refused to prorogue parliament, but if plans were already in place to "go over her head" as Baird suggested, where might this have left Canada? And now our Prime Minister is demanding that the military pay tribute to him in a way reserved for the head of our state...Wow. This is really scary. We’re not talking about some kind of government think-tank here, this is the MILITARY for goodness sakes.
Power can change hands all at once. We call that a Revolution. Power can also change hands incrementally, and largely in silence. We call that an Evolution. Revolutions force us to choose sides, and are usually conducted out in the open for all to see. Incremental creep, though, is often just as dangerous, because it happens slowly, over time, often in the dark.
See Rick Mercer’s blog about Minister Baird’s remarks: http://www.rickmercer.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/1/14/Over-Our-Heads
"Sudbury" Steve May
National Post's response
The link goes to Kelly McParland's response in the National Post.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/14/kelly-mcparland-elizabeth-may-off-her-meds.aspx
Waht a lame National Post response
This National Post blog was garbage, plain and simple.
As far as whether the host is relevant or not, I was raised as a Catholic, and I spoke with a relative over the weekend, who is a practicing Catholic. He is also a pretty rock solid Conservative supporter. All I will say is that he will not be supporting Harper ever again, and will be gossipping about this for years to come.
Sorry Elizabeth, I really
Sorry Elizabeth, I really think you are doing the Green Party a disservice by posting this, and you are getting into sectarian feuds.
It is okay to hold your own religious beliefs, but when you post them on the Green Party website you are crossing a line between representing your party and your faith.
In a lot of churches, particularly nearly every protestant church I went to growing up ( as Harper's Alliance Church is), communion is passed around to everyone one at a time by church elders. Everyone waits patiently until the whole congregation has been served and does it all at once. This is probably what Harper was expecting, and like you, was not aware of the differences between evangelical communion and catholic/anglican communion.
Protestant churches generally do not believe in transubstantiation, and as such communion is seen as a symbolic reminder of the last supper, and not, as becoming the actual blood or body of christ as some denominations hold. Most protestant churches see communion as an expression of faith and remembrance and do not care which denomination you came from as long as one believes that JC died for their since. As protestant churches are non-hierarchal, communion is seen as a bond between each member and God, with no intermediary. Once every member has a piece of bread, (or wine/juice), the pastor will read a piece of scripture from the last supper, (in some all members recite it) and the connection is between each member. These practices go directly back to when Martin Luther.
Harper's behaviour was clearly in line with his own faith, and certainly, you would be better to learn a little about the differences between communion practices before you go about publicly criticizing someone else faith, particularly when you are a party leader. Should Harper have learnt more about the exact proceedings of a Catholic Church before attending, perhaps, but this was for a funeral mass, and we can not fault someone (even if we have personal difference) for acting in good faith.
since when?
Dan,
As for that particular religious incident, it is admitted above that "it does not really matter".
I also do not see "publicly criticizing someone else [sic] faith" in the comments.
The issue is apparent repetitive breach of protocol, even with possibly outrageous innovation.
Add to this Jeffrey Simpson's very recent, "A very scary PM: ‘I don’t believe
that any taxes are good taxes’" ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-dont-beli... ).
I concur, "I think we have a problem." Do you not?
I spoke among Greens long before the last election about Conservatives' likely ambivalence about governing in the face of foreseen expanding economic calamity as well as the then-imminent replacement of their ultimate sponsors in the previous American administration. The new American administration would prefer an Ignatieff-led one here (I hope they don't get it), but would do with a chastened Harper one (which actually can be "better" in some respects than the other; woe is us). It is possible that some ridiculous post-election behaviour, some of which precipitated national crisis in governance, and this laxity about protocol, reflects the Conservatives' having lost whatever bearings they might have had. It might reflect irresponsible personal idiosyncracy in the PM. In any case, I do not see any "disservice" done by finding apparently very disturbing patterns and speaking publicly about them. Canadian politeness must not be persistently sheepish.
But thanks, Dan, for lightening things up: I don't think anyone believes that anyone "died for their since [sic]".
Daryl, I think it's a
Daryl, I think it's a foregone conclusion that Green supporters think Harper is somewhere between crazy and incompetent. The bigger question is whether it is appropriate for our leader to make statements that risk offending the religious.
It is not politically astute for Ms. May's blog entry to have been made by her personally. If we had other prominent public figures, it would have been common sense for someone else to attack Harper on a religious faux-pas that has already been swept under the rug by the bishop.
However, in absence of any such figurehead, why is our leader taking such a reputational risk? Where is the upside? Tell me, please where is the upside here? Are Harper supporters suddenly going to flock the GPC? No. So, we are left targeting, at best, a much smaller group of non-Harper CPC supporters who, instead of voting Liberal, might protest and vote Green instead. This is not politically astute.
It was a state funeral
I don't think that this is about Elizabeth's religious beliefs at all. It's about a very serious breach of protocol at a State funeral. Elizabeth's beliefs don't enter into it. If the PM made a similar breach of protocol at a secular state function, it would speak to his lack of preperation, and inadequate briefing. The point being that this wasn't a garden variety funeral, it was a state function, and the breach wasn't minor. It was sacrelidge to the adherents of the faith in question.
Sanctimonious
While the media may have duty to their shareholders to generate fictional controversy to improve ad sales during a slow news period, we do not.
This is cheap politics at best, at worst it is sanctimonious rhetoric aimed to create a denominational wedge.
Where's the wedge?
I rather glimpsed something of almost ecumenical acceptance, of religious interrelation.
But interrelation is not mush, there are rules to be respected and dealt with. The failure
at the funeral seems just too in line with too much else irregular. How could that not be seen to be the point? Maybe more emphasis on balance could have been made about the other faux pas noted, risking less misapprehension (by misreading, an all too common trait I've noticed in the general populace, and among GPC-ers; again, woe is us) about demonizing a denomination.
Is Jeffrey Simpson practising "cheap" journalism with "fictional controversy..." in the column cited?
The problem here is that
The problem here is that someone other than our leader should (maybe) be trying to exploit this. There is very little upside for the Greens on this, so why is our leader creating reputational risk for no reason?
No one associated with us
No one associated with us should be trying to exploit this. (Doesn't the word "exploit" turn your stomach?)
Go after Harper on his inability to differentiate between productive/pegovian and other taxes if you wish. Challenge him on his centralization.
But don't try to surmise some correlation between unrelated activities, particularly one on such a personal issue as "communion".
"it does not really matter."
You know what people usually do with things that don't matter? Nothing, because those things don't matter!
What troubles me in particular is is the tradeoff. Instead of campaigning in a yet-to-be-announced, but-already-decided riding, instead of writing about a pertinent issue to Canadians and GPC members, instead of fundraising, time has been spent crafting a religious piece on an issue that admits "does not really matter." Almost a dozen paragraphs in a blog posted on the front page of the GPC website, on something that after over a thousand words says "does not really matter."
Is that right? Is that fair to Green members? Does that represent the Green Party? I honestly don't think so. Saying something doesn't matter and then spending precious political resources and website real estate seems utterly pointless to me. And that does matter.
A clarification
Just to add, in general I think that Elizabeth's blogs are great, particularly in light of the the emergent blogging culture in Canadian politics and in the GPC. They provide eloquent insights of the Green leader into issues that Canadians and Greens care about. This one just unfortunately completely missed the mark.
missing the mark
Why are so many Canadians, including Greens, unable to really read?
Mark's points of distress have nothing directly to do with the issue of Elizabeth's blog item. The by far most important person in your national government repeatedly demonstrates "scary" attitiudes & behaviour -- somebody, comment on the corroborating Simpson piece I brought, or are too many Greens of Corocoran's ilk (can't bring myself to link his consistent tripe here) -- and Greens think it misplaced to point it out, when almost nobody else is?!
1000-plus words, a strain to far too many. Wouldn't want to stake out an intellectual high ground, preparing for an enduring political future, eh? Must be why I see brief messaging, boiling down impossible complexity, always at least a tad dishonest, dominating so many Greens' concerns. Want to fit into trite teevee segments? Ah, but might that teevee & movee culture, coupled with push-button expectations, not have much to do with impatience and deterioration of abilities to concentrate?
Still waiting for someone here, without importing other frustrations harboured, to actually rebut the gist of the blog item.
The gist of the blog item is irrelevent.
Daryl, the gist of the blog item is irrelevent.
It does nothing to advance our political position. Last I checked our platform doesn't talk about the Eucharist. It isn't going to get us any supporters. The only thing it does is make us look petty. It is up to the bishop to handle the situation, which he did. The only thing the blog entry does is make us look like opportunists -- which is somewhat contrary to the point of our party.
Knowing the problem isn't the solution.
It is patently obvious that we (Canadians) have a problem with Stephen Harper. Actually, many problems, more than one can rapidly list.
But agreeing on that doesn't bring the reader any closer to voting for or electing Greens. If anything, a desparate fear of Harper leads people to vote "strategically" - which in practise is for anyone but Greens.
I look forward to reading more blogs about why a vote for us (instead of just against Harper) is good for Canada.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
You hit the nail on the head!
Dear Erich,
Of all the words here, yours best point towards a path to victory. We don't gain anything by being ABC, anti-Harper, anti-conservative, etc... This role is already filled quite admirably by the Liberals and NDP, but I think the Green Party stands for something a little different. We're supposed to be the party of a new VISION not an ANTI-something party.
With the many disasters Harper has created it can be hard not to get stuck in criticizing mode.
I catch myself doing it sometimes because it's simply so easy. BUT, think about it from the average voter's point of view: if all you hear in the 30 second clip is negativity, would you vote for that? NO, people want to be inspired by a vision and solid values not be constant bickering.
So let's start talking about the VISION(where we're going) and get past criticizing the mistakes of the past.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information." These views are my own and do not represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
More on "woe is us".
Read Professor Emeritus Arthur Haberman's lament at http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/667580 .
Can the most intelligent writers' criticisms serve to dislodge the shame & travesty of the Conservative government in our non-intellectual land? It sometimes seems that too many Greens would not want it so.
Here's something from http://www.greenparty.ca/node/6600#comment-9502 :"A few days ago on CBC Radio an interviewee was describing a typical Canadian reaction to the suggestion in conversation of consideration of deep & fundamental issues: the interlocutor gives the suggester a look, picks up his drink and moves to another table. Still, there is a similar percentage of philosophically inclined among Canadians as among all peoples, it's just that it's not easily allowed to emerge with seriousness in public discourse."
Now Corcoran (find his disgusting anti-Simpson piece from yesterday yourself at the National Post), not to be counted among those most competent criticizers, nor listeners valuing our CBC Radio either I'd bet; I heard a few years ago on CBC Radio none other than Judy Rebick praising the gentlemanliness of Corocoran (in contrast, she said, to her closer poltical colleagues!), someone whose words (other than "hello" & "good-bye" one supposes) she never agreed with. I left off reading his simplistic tripe ages ago, woe is us that he can still have influence. Note also what positive things Judy Rebick had to say (again on CBC Radio) about the GPC leader, see http://www.greenparty.ca/node/4167#comment-3923 , http://greenparty.ca/node/4750#comment-5171 ,
http://greenparty.ca/node/4750#comment-5176 .
Is the concern to be not too impolite in trying to attract the homeless "Red Tories" that Haberman speaks about? (Note, GPOntario folks, the professor's reference in the article to the statesmanship of Bill Davis, in extending long withheld school funding to Catholics, something which GPO actually dumbly campaigned to retract!) Or is it shrillness that grates? (I have noticed in GPC some pretty misguided suggestions of misogyny in reaction to some valid criticisms.) For sure the tone & timbre of political communication is important, but when no one else is speaking forthrightly, one should be able to listen through any off-putting tone & timbre.
I've been around dissent in just so many ways for some thirty years. I try to read some Greens' impatient & irritated airs as inexperience coupled with enthusiasm. Be advised that having fun playing the political machinery to the detriment of more deeply expressed "green" originating purpose is likely to prove rather disappointing in the end.
Read "Simpson's Lament" (https://greenparty.ca/node/4324#comment-5361 ), too. I'm not here defending Simpson (about whom I've put out some satire in these pages, as well as shown due respect), or May even. It's about the conduct of and background attitudes of some other Greens.
This is outrageous.
Daryl, says "I've been around dissent in just so many ways for some thirty years. I try to read some Greens' impatient & irritated airs as inexperience coupled with enthusiasm. Be advised that having fun playing the political machinery to the detriment of more deeply expressed 'green' originating purpose is likely to prove rather disappointing in the end."
That paragraph is highly diminutive; it is without foundation and insulting.
It is possible I misunderstand what you have written, are you implying that non-fundamentalist Greens are incompetent?
I noticed Daryl is quick to
I noticed Daryl is quick to point out a spelling mistakes of others, yet his writing style makes it extremely difficult to interpret what he is saying.
"For sure the tone & timbre of political communication is important, but when no one else is speaking forthrightly, one should be able to listen through any off-putting tone & timbre."
If we actually wish to see a better planet, and better policies, we have to be able to communicate our vision in a way which others can understand. Tone and language is essential, since it allows us to maintain credibility and break through biases. If people don't like how you say something, they won't like what you have to say.
We have to be careful about how we articulate our positions, otherwise we risk marginalizing ourselves and entrenching the status quo. This does not mean that we have to hide our values or water down our policies, it means we have to position them within the context of our audience.
stylistic prose
I applaud you for noticing the stylistic prose. It's tortuous. I must admit, I sometimes unintentionally write like Daryl as well, but I make efforts by rereading and rewording everything I write to make sure it's straightforward. It's only polite that the effort be reciprical.
Secondly,
I want to take issue with you when you say "water down our policies." I think we need to take a step back and ask how far in future must our vision extend. Some policies are no-doubt contentious and non-populist. I'm all for demilitarizing the world, but that vision is completely farcical given the times we live in. I feel if our policies do not realistically wend in the current political context then we obligate ourselves to be exceedingly myopic, lest everyone worry whether we are capable of pragmatism. That last sentence was worded for Daryl :)
Also, in watering down our policies, who is the "our"? If we want to be inclusive, then "our" policies are an aggregation of each and everyone who wants to be a member. Through everyone's inclusion, "our" policies can evolve. This is the consequence of grassroots control. Our policies are supposed to be dynamic. You must either choose that our policy framework is transient, or that we do not wish to be inclusive. We can't have it both ways.
-Bram
I didn't mean to imply that current policies are not adaptable to circumstances. Instead, I only ask that we think about our audience when explaining our policies.
For instance, instead of attacking Harper, in my campaign we dropped off fliers that said "real conservatives vote green" in Conservative polls, and used headings such as "reducing taxes on income and work" to describe the tax shift, and "reducing gang violence" to talk about legalizing pot. The right typically knows how to use language to centralize their policies, (ie, George Bush talking about a conserver society or the tories "clean air act").
If we are looking to make political inroads, we should usurp their language for our solutions.
I don't know if that approach works...
Dan, I don't know if your approach works because I am aware of any analysis that we've done as a party to find out if your assumptions are true. I personally think that approaching conservatives from a more libertarian view might be more effective -- people should be allowed to smoke pot because it's not the government's business what you do. This, of course is only my belief, as a party we've never even bothered to find out what works.
We can't make decisions about broadening our policies, (I don't think the term water down is correct) if we don't even know what resonates. We are a political party, this should be a primary concern for us.
Depends on what is relevant
Depends on what is relevant in your community.
We had numerous gang shootings in my riding so it made sense here, but yes, knowing what resonates is important.
not so quick, Dan,...
...to point those out, I actually feel obliged to "sic" something I quote, it really is a duty of care, associated with reading skill & honesty really, and I really meant to appreciate the lighter side of things with that good one of your own (and highly appreciate errors pointed out by myself, of all kinds!)
as for writing style, i went through this kind of challenge long ago on this blogsite, speaking to why i deliberately keep to thicker style sometimes, and switch to simple style often enough
let's move on to some real serious stuff, e.g. take up the cell phone & mast issue i can no longer hold back posting about, as we as good Greens should be doing (whatever some newcomers might think), is this ever an issue GPC can own!
finally let me repeat something i've said somewhere for sure already among Greens, & i say this only because a prime undercurrent of all the annoyance going about is for sure connected to some members' & candidates' misgivings about our leadership, it was precisely because of some reticence about our most intelligent leader's occasional communicative incaution that i actually voted for David C., very hard choice that it was at the time, but i regret the current leadership NOT ONE WHIT, and the current blog controversy is IN NO WAY an instance of that incaution
Voter Participation
I believe acedemic studies have shown that positive messaging increases voter turn-out and participation and negative messaging decreases and suppreses voter turn-out and participation. Also, negative messaging may reinforce the perceived inevitability of the success of the target being attacked and may simultaneously reduce the perceived viability of our candidate as well as the likeability of our candidate.
Every action has consequences. Some positive, some negative and some neutral. It is possible that negative messaging toward the current Prime Minister, has negative consequences for our potential for electoral success.
Rob Brooks
Hull-Aylmer
for all those squeamish about "Harper-bashing"
An important new book, Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis (Russell & Sossin, editors), "a reasoned and timely [scholarly] response to" the recent prorogation crisis, contains many severely critical words about our current PM. Even if he's chastened, "I [still] think we have a problem".
RH Adrienne Clarkson (who contributes the Foreword) is quoted that she "decided [...] if the government lasted six months [she] would allow dissolution", presumably meaning that, after the three other leaders at the time (incl. Harper) had written to her "suggesting that they were prepared to form a government", much like the would-be Layton-Dion-Duceppe-led get-together, had Paul Martin's Liberals, in minority since June '04, not squeaked by in a November confidence vote, the then-GG would have allowed the others to do as our current GG did not.
Gary Levy mentions criticism of the fixed election date business (see http://www.greenparty.ca/node/6713 my comments opposing this as well), but above all "failure [...] to find the right answers" to questions about parliamentary (non-)confidence that had accrued in the run-up to the prorogation fiasco, especially around expressions of non-confidence other than directly over the "Throne Speech, [...] budget, and [...] government estimates". He also brings up Baird's infamous going "over the heads" remark (which I brought at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/113/2008-12-07/its-not-economy#comment-8923 , maybe at the time even underestimating the extent of the attitudinal threat expressed, in apparent deep disregard with risk of violation of parliamentary tradition).
Levy comments that these & other "events [...] should be a wake-up call to those who want to preserve a Westminster-style parliamentary system." Facing perpetual minorities, "it is incumbent on our leaders to find ways of dealing with implications arising from the parliamentary combinations the people elect." This is part of the general electoral reform theme GPC should (& should have) placed in the forefront of a campaign. (See my many comments about the failed coalition, other cross-party co-operation, &c on this blogsite.) GPC should announce, even as part of a campaign, that "it is time to embrace Professor David Smith's recommendation for the creation of an independent body or royal commission 'to study the law, conventions, usages, and customary understandings that guide parliamentary government in Canada.'" Levy would have such a commission consider "repeal or change [of] the fixed election law [which] has done no good and much harm." He also encourages that our "Speakership (the four officers who preside) [...] a vastly underutilized cog in our parliamentary system [be engaged for] procedural reform [, the] Speakers are the only ones whose job encourages them to think seriously about how to improve the House of Commons for the long-term good of the institution and the country and not merely for short-term political advantage". Why not incorporate, in the absence of some form of PR for seats in either the Senate or Commons, some official roles for excluded parties, which already receive public funding, where the value of such funding could be enhanced far beyond where so much of those funds are merely thrown to the winds in the campaign advertising world? Official if non-voting places for intervention in committees maybe? A designated poser of questions directly in Question Period from non-seated parties? All kinds of things come to mind. GPC should use its office of political creativity to air all kinds of possibilities in a campaign. It would serve the public interest in increasing thought about our institutions, keep the electoral reform agenda openly alive, display fluency with those institutions in raising the bar of public discussion, in contributing to more widely being taken seriously "that the legitimacy of our institution is based ultimately on the informed consent of the governed. We all have a long way to go if we are to have both a political class and a population capable of sustaining responsible government for another 160 years."
Now more on to what I tried to draw your attention by: For Andrew Heard, Harper's "actions undermine the most fundamental principle [...] : that the government of the day must win and maintain the confidence of a majority of the elected members of Parliament." It is known as "responsible government", where "people elect legislatures not governments". Harper's "decision to suspend Parliament was unconstitutional on several levels." He used "a tactic that is normally condemned by Western governments when employed by a struggling Third World regime threatened with a legislative revolt, such as occurred in Sri Lanka in 2001. This [was] defiance of Parliament." Harper's proposed prorogation "delay contravenes an accepted constitutional convention that serious doubts about whether a government has lost the confidence of the House must be resolved in a relatively short order [...] a seven- to ten- day window". Harper's "manoeuvre is simply unheard of among modern established democracies [...] a fundamental abuse of power [...] to shut down [when] poised to [face] non-confidence". Thus the GG "was not bound by her normal duty to act on the prime minister's [unconstitutional] advice."
Whereas Ned Franks believes she "made the right decision", his argument regards not constitutionality but the potential serious political eventualities related to nation-splitting and non-durable substitute government. Harper, if she didn't grant his request, "would have continued his inflammatory and constitutionally incorrect [...] rhetoric [about] an unconstitutional act by the unelected Liberal-appointed governor general from Quebec" allowing "illegitimate coalition", "socialists", "separatists", "disliked Dion", not "facing the electorate". (Cf. my comment at http://www.greenparty.ca/node/8680#comment-8891 esp. 3rd section).
[more to follow from the book when I can get to it]
revolutionary Harper
L. Weinrib reminds us that Harper "went on to appoint one Supreme Court justice and eighteen senators during the period of prorogation -- hardly routine matters -- when the question of his support in the House was under a cloud"; reminds us of "the fragility of [...] the principle of responsible government"; of his "preference [...] to denigrate the opposition leaders, rather than to build upon common ground"; of the "possibility of the illegitimate exercise of public power"; of his political aggression; that "there may be further serious repercussions arising from the events of December 2008 to January 2009"; his "disregard" "of a number of deeply embedded constitutional principles and practices"; he's "capable of precipitating a serious constitutional crisis"; was "disingenuous", "misleading", "played on ignorance of the Canadian public"; by his actions & of other Cons. showed he "was willing to dispense with Parliament altogether", "was ready to precipitate a confrontation with the governor general", has "an extended track record of disdain for many of the principles and practices that lie at the foundation of the Canadian constitutional order"; "barely tolerates the dispersal of power, extensive public engagement, and respect for equal citizenship that modern parliamentary democracies cherish"; "denigrates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms"', "disains most of its substantive guarantees" "as well as judicial protection afforded those guarantees"; "berates judges for excessive activism when they decide cases that conflict with his own political preferences"; "insists that legislatures alone should make social policy" [see on the recent Hutterite decision in this light, esp. from http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-24/hutterites-photographs#comment-10289: "But this case, where the majority opinion keeps redundantly repeating about historical deference to legislatures, makes it seem to me that all governments were worried how this case would come down, and the court majority was concerned to show they'd likely go along with increased security apparatus. How could they not, when such a ridiculously obligatory measure like photo id is taken to be so necessary to drive? Perhaps also was involved a desire to send a message particularly to Alberta, home of many politically impatient with our judiciary, that they in Alta. can be deferred to as well." -- are some SCC judges quivering some in the wake of Dec-Jan?]; Harper has "a rather thin understanding of civil society"; "has staged confrontations with those who hold high positions in government and are charged with expert and non-partisan responsibilities" [citing him vs. Mayrand, Keen]; places little importance on the complx mesh of powers and restraints that make up the framework of parliamentary governance -- including the rule of law", " separation of powers", "fundamental rights and freedoms"; reminds us that his actions "align with another principle -- an all-powerful executive authority that makes its rules on a play-by-play basis" [any of you paying attention to what has transpired in the US in recent years, regarding things like executive "signing authority" & "continuity of government"?]; "repeatedly refused to admit and stand accountable for his own mistakes"; "emphasized partisan politics at the expense of the rule of law"; "denied the bureaucracy the respect due their independence, expertise, and delegated authority"; Weinrib finally reminds us of the "importance of a citizenry that is deeply versed in the basic principles of parliamentary governance" -- why not have GPC play a good role in helping to more "deeply verse" electors?
So how's all that for pretty scathing?
"I think we have a problem."
Greens mentioned
[a bit more from the same book]
G. Skogstad: "Although without representation in the House of Commons and therefore not in a position to provide tangible support, the Green Party also supported the coalition. Had a system of full PR prevailed, the Greens would have been able to translate their popular vote into five or six seats in western Canada. [...] As with the Green Party, voters' realization that their vote 'counts' in a PR system in a way it often does not in the simple-plurality system would possibly also give voters more incentive to vote for minority parties. The impact of electoral reform, then, would be to alter the partisan complexion of western Canada to make it far less monochromatic.'"
crisp & astringent
Harper can't have his "populism" and eat it, too. If all that is not a "problem" plain for Greens to see, and worthy of being spoken loudly about...
"The Coalition That Wasn't" : "Pity"
In yet another essay from the same book, G. White expresses my feelings exactly, that "the great pity of the failure of the coalition initiative lies in the missed opportunity it represented for leading the way to substantial and much-needed progress to parliamentary reform." I'm glad that GPC is on record, contra too many GPC-ers, for having supported the coalition opportunity (see Skogstad above). White's (& my) "enthusiasm for the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition" had less to do with "policy directions" or "general preference for coalitions than with the clear signal it could have sent that [...] real change is possible [...] without abandoning the principles of responsible government that have long served us well." The "genius of Westminster responsible government lies in its adaptability to a wide range of political circumstances. The trick is to recognize and take advantage of its adaptability." Against Harperite Flanagan's belief about "pre-democratic" "antiquated machinery" of responsible government, consider what I said at http://www.greenparty.ca/node/4264#comment-4183 (q.v. s.v.p.): "Institutions conceived in one era can find new purpose in another." This is yet another case of what I've spoken of many times, e.g. here (qv svp as well), "more than once have I noted that those on the political right can be right, not for right reasons, but based on right perception, about things Greens should understand. So who better than he to ridicule & prescribe where a self-sustaining & counterproductively self-entrenching centralist bureaucracy should be cut down to size [that was re Flanagan's Harperite colleague, Cooper, here the right perceptions regard our parliament]. But because reasons are off, prescriptions can be downright dangerous [see examples there of over-the-top comment]." Thus we had (and still have a potential) prairie bull in a china shop -- our "problem".
The coalition "would have demonstrated that there are very different ways of 'doing' responsible government -- that Canadians have many options before them for revitalizing their Parliament and for enhancing their democracy." "Had the coalition lasted the two years its proponents envisaged, it likely would have entailed the most far-reaching set of changes for decades to how Ottawa in general and the House of Commons in particular operate." White goes on to give numerous examples of flexible applications to our system of government -- minus the "massive misinformation" "and not a little disinformation" of our "problem" -- from " 'community cabinets' in some Australian states" to the partylessness of our own Nunavut & NWT, as well as a host of "less improbable ideas" for Ottawa. It is "wrong" to think that "real change is impossible" or that "responsible govenment must be jettisoned in favour of a populist, plebiscitary model." Most "pernicious is the abysmal lack of understanding of the basic principles that underpin goverance in our country. How depressing that so few voices arose to contradict the claim of Conservative politicians and their fellow-travellers in the media" [see, e.g. re now-Senator Duffy, Elizabeth's blog item and at my own comment there], talking "abysmally inaccurate[ly]" about " 'undemocratic seizure of power '" or even " 'coup' ". "They should have been hooted down or, better yet, greeted with the dismissive laughter they deserved", and even "worse were their reprehensible efforts to retain power by stirring up anti-Quebec feeling".
"British-style responsible parliamentary government is one of the great political inventions of all time. We're very lucky to have it." The coalition "had the potential to bring new thinking, new life to Parliament", its loss "was the loss of the best opportunity in decades to get on with the essential business of parliamentary reform". Greens should pick up where that lost opportunity left off, re-examine any discomfort with support of the fact of that coalition, and maintain responsible talk of such creatively available reform at the top of any agenda, on or off campaign.