A Strategic Coalition, Hopefully Progressive

A short political essay by Maxim Daniel Pollack

(I) How did it come to this?

The Harper Conservatives have refused to let the minority Parliament work. Since 2006 they have bullied the opposition parties and governed as if they had a majority. They refused to build "consensus legislation" and would not budge from their devotion to the hard-right politics of the Bush Doctrine and the (now discredited) policies of free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, for the past two years the Liberal Party has refused to oppose the Harper government. They voted with the Conservative government 43 times, selling out the millions of Canadians who voted for them with the understanding that they would stand up for progressive values. This record of betrayal left the Liberals in a very weak position entering the 2008 election, combined with weak leadership and a Green Shift plan that Liberal candidates refused to sell at the door, the Liberal party had their worst electoral defeat in Canadian history. Stephane Dion resigned in shame (and no one tried to stop him). The Liberals were then thrown into another uninspiring leadership race to be decided with a convention in May. The conventional wisdom was that a defeated and confused Liberal party, without a leader, would be too weak and disorganized to offer much resistance and, in fear of another election, would shamefully continue to capitulate to the Harper agenda until May, during which time Harper would continue to govern as if he had a majority with only the NDP and Bloc to oppose him.

(II) The conventional wisdom was wrong

Believing the conventional wisdom, Harper came back to parliament with a plan that would give George Bush a boner, attacking pay-equity and the right to strike and "using the cover of an economic crisis to financially strangle the other parties" (Chantal Hebert). The opposition parties were "angered by Thursday's economic statement that delivered no financial boost to Canada's ailing economy-- but served up provocative measures such as cutting political subsidies, curbing public servant's right to strike and modifying pay equity rules--the NDP, Liberals and Bloc have united" (Toronto Star) to form a coalition government, Canada's first since World War One.

(III) First past the post (FPTP)

If Canada gets a federal coalition government it will be the first in living memory. Of course coalition governments are common in many other Western democracies, but in Canada our archaic first-past-the-post electoral system normally excludes bi-partisan politics entirely. The British developed FPTP for a two-party system, gerrymandered to minimize the risk of smaller parties winning seats in the House of Commons. If we had proportional representation (PR), and many people feel we should, a multiplicity of political views would be represented in parliament. (Under a PR system, the NDP would have 56 seats instead of 37 and the Greens would have 20 seats instead of zero!) With multiple parties dividing a finite number of seats, majority governments would become increasingly rare, making coalition governments a political necessity. At their best, coalition governments can embody the diversity and nuance of the public will. Anyone who supports PR should not be opposed to a coalition government, at least not on principle.

(IV) A national consensus

Canadians are a diverse and multicultural cohort with polyamorous ambitions, but in the wake of the political crisis in Ottawa, there seems to be a national consensus building: a) The Conservatives have refused to let the minority government work, ipso facto, a change is needed, and b) Canadians DO NOT WANT ANOTHER ELECTION!

A Liberal-NDP Coalition government seems to be the compromise that the majority of Canadians could live with right now. In fact, when you take the popular vote into consideration, a coalition government seems to be the most democratic choice. According to the Toronto Star, in the Oct. 14, 2008 election the Conservatives received 37.6% of the popular vote, the Liberals 26.2%, the New Democrats 18.2% and the Bloc 10.0%. A Liberal-NDP coalition would have, in theory, the support of 44.4% of the electorate, and with the support of the Bloc, we could have legislation supported by 54.4% of the population, a significant improvement on the 37.6% mandate given to the Conservatives. In truth the Conservative mandate was much smaller than this, as almost 40% of eligible Canadians did not vote. According to the "Coalition For Change" (empowered by the Lib-NDP brain trust to sell the coalition to the public), "a 62% majority of Canadians didn't vote for Stephen Harper. They voted for a government that will kick-start our ailing economy and put their family first."

"Canadians for a Progressive Coalition" is a BC based political lobby that was "asking the NDP and Liberals to form a coalition government with support from the Bloc Quebecois and counsel from the Greens" well before it was a political reality. They claim that "in 2008 the majority of Canadians voted for a prosperous, fair, and green Canada. Over 60% of voters cast their ballots for parties with progressive platforms. Yet with only 37% of the votes the Conservatives behaved as though they had 100% of the power."

Before the October 14, 2008 election, I wrote that "a Liberal-New Democrat coalition (or legislative accord) is an example of a minority government that could work for Canada, using the Bloc to form a national consensus on public policy. In this way, we could exclude the corporate policies of Bush/Harper from Canadian politics completely." A "strategic alliance" between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc is a welcome development, but just exactly how "progressive" such an arrangement will be is yet to be seen.

(V) A progressive coalition?

I am all for a coalition of the opposition parties to take down the Conservative government, but calling such a coalition "progressive" is a bit misleading. The NDP and Bloc are certainly progressive parties, they have led a brave opposition to the Bush/Harper corporate agenda, but the Liberals have not. The Liberals supported the Conservative federal budget, the most reactionary federal budget in Canadian history. A federal budget that gives $50 billion to corporations and leaves very little for the social programs we all care about. The Liberals are not a progressive party, and in the last parliament, I don't think they really counted as an "opposition" party either. The truth is that the Liberals support the corporate agenda and the Washington Consensus embraced by our Prime Minister.

For millions of progressive Canadians the thought of replacing Harper with a Liberal-NDP coalition is very exciting, and rightly so. "The coalition — which would have a 24-member cabinet composed of six NDP and 18 Liberal MPs — has vowed to make an economic stimulus package a priority, proposing a multi-billion-dollar plan that would include help for the auto and forestry sectors" (CBC). Defeating the Harper Conservatives would be a huge moral victory for everyone and everything that his government has attacked; the environment, women, minorities, the arts, Quebec and working people from coast to coast. Liberal supporters must be in a euphoric daze, after orchestrating one of the worst defeats in Liberal Party history, Stephane Dion could be Prime Minister less than a month later! But that's parliamentary politics, and if any one's to blame, its Harper, for his arrogant contempt for the opposition and the 62% of the Canadian population that did not vote for his right-wing agenda.

(VI) A dangerous proposition

For New Democrat supporters the coalition is an exciting but dangerous proposition. On the one hand it offers the New Democrats their first chance to govern at the federal level, but only as the junior partner to a capitalist party that does not share its core values. The Liberal party will often campaign from the left, but they almost always govern from the right. In power throughout the 1990s, the Liberals gutted social services, stealing billions from our public health care system and embraced NAFTA and the corporate agenda. For the past 20 years the Liberal Party in power has promulgated deregulation & privatization, policies which are now universally condemned as the source of our current economic crisis. There is no reason to believe that they have changed. If they truly believe in environmental sustainability (or pay-equity or universal day-care) as they claim, why did they do nothing during the 15 years they had a majority government? The Liberal Party of Canada is not a progressive party and a coalition between the Liberals and the New Democrats may not be a happy marriage.

(VII) A cautious optimism

The "62% majority" are cautiously optimistic that if given the chance, the coalition could deliver a change, and not without reason. "The 1985 accord between New Democrats and Liberals in Ontario netted such gains as equal pay for women, recognition of human rights for gays and phasing out of acid rain" (Wayne Roberts). The New Democrats are a principled left-wing party with strong leadership and a clear vision. If the NDP can pull the Liberals to the left and force them to (at least partially) adopt progressive policies that will help working families and the environment, then the coalition would be a success, and certainly far better than what we have now. "The number one most exciting thing about installing a new coalition government in Ottawa is the chance to begin seriously addressing the environmental crisis as part of the solution to our current economic disaster" (Alice Klein). A productive run in government could give the New Democrats (and social democracy) some much needed legitimacy in the eyes of main-stream Canadians, who normally vote Liberal out of habit, although many are actually closer to the New Democrats on social and economic values.

(VIII) An unholy alliance

Of course the Conservatives have already begun a massive disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition. They claim that the coalition is premeditated and undemocratic, but their arguments essentially boil down to one central theme, that the Liberals have entered into an "unholy alliance with socialists and separatists" that will lead to the inevitable destruction of the federation! This is Reform Party bigotry all over again. Anti-Quebec chauvinism is as old as Stephen Harper. "The Reform part of the Conservatives hates Quebec with a passion, and Harper has unleashed the dogs of venom" (Michael Behiels). The Conservatives are trying to paint any alliance with the Bloc Quebecois as "un-Canadian." I have one thing to say to Stephen Harper: Quebecois are Canadians too! In fact, the central strength of a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition would be its ability to bring Quebec into the federal government, so to speak, and give Quebecois a sense of ownership. As demonstrated by their record in Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois are a pragmatic, principled and progressive party that (unlike the Liberals) stood up to Harper and will bring good ideas that could benefit all Canadians. Now is the time for all Canadians to stand with Quebec against right-wing attacks.

Stephen Harper once again demonstrated his contempt for democracy when he asked Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament and avoid a non-confidence vote that would have brought down his government. Has he only delayed the inevitable? That will depend on the success of the multi-million dollar media blitz that the Conservatives will use over the Holidays to convince Canadians that Harper actually does have a plan to save our economy, he just didn't want anyone to see it. Will he try to sell us on his real agenda, ending pay equity and taking away the right to strike? Not likely.

(IX) Its time for a change

A Liberal-NDP (and Bloc) coalition could be a productive government, and progressive Canadians should give it their support, but not uncritically, and only on the condition that it can deliver meaningful change on the big issues. A Liberal-NDP government would represent a strategic (and hopefully progressive) coalition to defeat the Harper agenda. It would be a big step forward for Canada.

MDP

"The bridges Stephen Harper's minority government burnt last week will not be rebuilt easily, if ever.The abrupt withdrawal of the plan to end direct public political financing Saturday does not change the fact that the Prime Minister wanted to use the cover of an economic crisis to financially strangle the other parties. Nor can yesterday's about-face on suspending the right to strike of civil servants diminish the fact that last week's fiscal update sent a powerful signal that the government sees the ongoing economic storm as an opportunity to settle ideological scores. From the perspective of the opposition parties, there is no guarantee that the Conservatives will not be back with more of the same as soon as the threat of instant dismissal from government is removed. The window to replace the Harper government without plunging the country into an election will not remain open beyond the next couple of months."

-Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, December 1, 2008