chezmax | On Coalition Governments...

I will preface this all with "I Am Not A Constitutional Scholar".

On the topic of the proposed coalition government, I don't have a strong opinion. I am not a Conservative supporter, nor am I particularly a Liberal, or NDP supporter. I am generally fiscally centrist, and socially leftist. I would be cautiously optimistic about the supposed arrangement.

However, I do have lots of opinion on the rhetoric coming from the government, media, and people regarding the coalition.

A lesson, if you will.

The type of government of Canada is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of Canada, but is bound by our constitution.

The Queen of Canada, formally known as Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (quite a mouthful), is legally distinct from the Queen of the United Kingdom, and is a separate title, position, and job (if you will), but embodied in the same person. Apparently she's also the Queen of 14 other realms. However, as she's not actually in Canada most of the time, her duties are performed by the Governor-General federally, and by the lieutenant governors provincially. The Queen of Canada is the legal personality of the Canadian state, and the state is known as Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (the ten provincial states are also similar, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario, etc.). This is the formal name of the government, and is used, for example, when someone sues the government. This is also why we have crown corporations, crown wards, crown land, etc. Anyways, despite all that, the Constitution is the law of the land, and the Queen (or the Governor-General,in fact) has very little power, and generally acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, except in extroadinary circumstances. See the linked wiki article for all the gory details.

The Constitution of Canada is actually not one document, but a collection of documents and traditions. Canada is a common-law country, which means quite a lot of our law is set out by precedent and tradition. The constitution, as it is now, outlines the form of government (a Westminster-based parliament), the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how to change it, among other things. Until 1982, Canada could not change the constitution without the consent of the English parliament. Again, wiki for gory details.

So, anyways, the westminster system is a representative democracy stipulates that our government is made up of representatives (that we call Members of Parliament), that represent a population group (of around 100,000 people) that we divide into ridings. We elect an MP to represent us in the government. These MPs tend to band into parties.

Anyways, the trick with this is that the government is whoever a majority of these MPs say it is. In a majority case (where MPs from a single party control over half of the seats of House of Commons) they are obviously the government, as they will support their own party. But, since Canada has more than two parties, we get oddities. In a minority case (where no one party has more than half of the seats) the government can only rule with the support (or confidence) of MPs in other parties. The Governor-General, asks the leader of the party who has the support of the parliament to form the government. In a minority case, this is usually, but not necessarily, the leader of the party with the most seats.

If the ruling government loses the confidence of the house (ie, the support of a majority of MPs), the current government cannot govern anymore. This can be stipulated by passing a bill of no confidence, or by failing to support important pieces of legislation (such as a budget).

The current situation in Canada is interesting. Stephen Harper, the current Prime Minister, and his Conservative Party seem to have already, just weeks into governing, lost the support of a majority of parliament, meaning the government is likely to fall. The Liberals and NDP are proposing to form a coalition, thus amalgamating their position temporarily in Parliament. However, together, they still do not have half the seats. The other other party, the Bloc Quebecois, has agreed in principle to support this new coalition, without being part of the government. This means that, theoretically, the Liberal/NDP coalition has the support of a majority of parliament, and could form a government, were the existing government to fall.

Normally, when a government falls, an election is called. But we just had one weeks ago.

There is some precedent for another government to be formed without an election, both in the UK and Canada, and precedent is a form of law. This means that when Harper tells Michaelle Jean (the governor general) that he has lost the support of the house, she could call on the Liberal/NDP to form a government, if she believes that they enjoy the confidence of a majority of the house. Again, the government is whoever a majority of the MPs say it is. So, in this sense, there is nothing Un-Canadian about this, nor is it unprecedented, nor is it a violation of the voters: after all, a majority of the voters did not vote in the Conservatives.

Any questions?

(This is currently public in case anyone wants share this with someone, but I will probably FO it in a few days. Yes you may link to this, but please let me know if you do)

Edit: Further Reading, including different points of context (what precipitated this particular chrisis, and information on the spin Harper is putting on this, and why he's a hypocrite...)

Edit^2: Further discussion about the machinations through which Harper is trying to delay, including proroguing (suspending) parliament.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

hedgegoth.livejournal.com

Sounds like what happened in 1980 with Joe Clark. that lasted only a few months before a new election.

From:

On Coalition Governments...

Navigation

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags