print:Despite persistence, Canada fails to reach rock bottom

It�s not good, but it could have been worse.

On July 3, 2004, I wrote an article entitled �Canada dodges a bullet� which addressed our near-miss in an election a few days earlier that might have moved us squarely into the elite group of neo-conservative brutes who hold so much of the world in thrall. Whether by good luck or good judgment, we chose instead to elect a corrupt bunch of familiar clowns who, while utterly inept, were are least marginally on the positive side of humanity.

And we were not disappointed: the familiar clowns continued to be inept. But what we had always suspected was a corrupt ruling party eventually imploded in a sea of scandals leaving no doubt as to their integrity.

In our curious electoral paradigm, voting doesn�t occur at specified intervals but rather when Parliament loses confidence in the government, at the whim of the governing party, or within five years � whichever occurs first. So yesterday, eighteen months later, we headed back to the polls in the dead of a Canadian winter (whose bright idea was that?), angry as hell at the ruling Liberals and apparently finally ready to give the reins of power to Margaret Thatcher�s bastard child. Pundits will say that many people voted against the Liberals rather than for the Conservatives, and they�re probably right; but here we are stuck with the spawn of Satan as our new Prime Minister. Oh boy.

Throughout most of our history we have been governed by the Liberal party. Every fifth election or so, voters awake from their customary slumber and send the Liberals to their rooms for a few years to think about what they�ve done. Eventually, we think they�ve learned their lesson and we return the keys to Parliament and hope for the best. This was one of those occasions when the behaviour of the Liberals was so obnoxious that we actually sent them to their rooms without dinner. But it may not be all that long before we see them again because we still elected a whole lot of them.

In Canada�s curious multi-party system we frequently elect governments where less than 50% of the electorate has voted for the winner. All that�s needed is for one party to have more elected members than any other and they get to form the government. If the winner has less than half of the elected members, we have a minority government where the ruling party only to gets to stay in power by forming alliances with other parties to form a plurality of seats. It has proven to be a rare occurrence in Canada to have the winning party achieve 50% of the votes, but getting 50% of the seats is significantly easier. In fact, the Conservatives (also known as Tories) will form the next government with about 36% of the popular vote and about 40% of the seats. They�re going to need some help.

Because of the way constituencies are delineated and our �first past the post� system, it is quite possible that a high percentage of votes for a party will translate into a low number of elected members. For instance, the New Democratic party, our socialist party, won about 17% of the popular vote but less than 10% of the seats. In fact, it is mathematically possible for the Bloc Qu�becois, a party confined only to the province of Qu�bec and with a stated intent of dismantling Canada, to actually become the national government. Who says Canadians don�t have a bizarre sense of humour?

So what did we choose this time out? George W. Bush �lite�.

Our new prime minister, Stephen Harper, is significantly more intelligent than Bush; but that�s not saying much, so is a woolen hat. But Harper and Bush are clearly cut from the same cheese cloth. Harper is a right-wing economist and neo-conservative ideologue with a decidedly anti-social approach to government.

While Canada is, regrettably, not a socialist country, we do generally have a strong social conscience. Our new prime minister believes vigorously in the idea of everyone fending for themselves, that Canada is not a social unit with social goals for the protection and betterment of our society. He believes it is an economic unit and should be run like a corporation with high returns for the elite shareholders and low wages and no benefits for the workers.

So Canada�s answer to years of corrupt and arrogant Liberal rule is to give the Tories (which I�m positive is short for �lavatories�) the chance to run Parliament, without giving them the keys to the front door. Tories are just about the exact opposite of every other major political party in Canada and, with less than 50% of the seats, they will have to form alliances and make compromises on a lot of issues in order for their government to last more than a few months. Whether they can do that is going to depend entirely on them. None of the parties will be itching for another election because it�s an expensive process and they know Canadians weren�t too happy about having to go to the polls this time, a mere eighteen months since the last time.

The Tories have a hard-right agenda and the support of most of the neo-conservative groups in the nation to the south of us � but they do not have sufficient support from the people of Canada to contemplate rolling out their worst ideas. Any one of the Liberal, Bloc Qu�becois, or New Democratic (NDP) parties have sufficient seats that they could side with the Tories on certain issues to provide the 50% support needed to pass legislation. But none of those parties is socially conservative and the Tories are going to have to make some major concessions to social planning if they expect to live long.

If there is any saving grace, that is it: the Tories have not been given outright power.

Canadians have seen Stephen Harper as a scary guy. He has been demonized as being ultra-conservative, far-too-far-to-the-right, anti-women, anti-gay, pro-corporate � and that�s all true. But he is also pragmatic, and his joy at yesterday�s victory will have been tempered by the fact that he will have to reach compromises with parties with whom he is vehemently opposed. The fortunate thing for him, and Canada, is that the Bloc Qu�becois (despite their separatist goals) and the NDP leaders are also very pragmatic and will certainly be willing to come at least part of the way. But if the redneck contingency in Harper�s party, and it is sizable, holds sway with him, this government won�t last long.

There are those who will say that a minority government is unworkable because there is too much infighting and jockeying for position to accomplish anything. Well, all we need is to look at the minority governments of Prime Minister Lester Pearson in the 1960s. Pearson, who won a Nobel Peace Prize as a master of cooperation and compromise, was able to govern in successive minorities that produced Canada�s unemployment insurance system, our old age pension system, our guaranteed income supplement system, our national student loan system, and � the crown jewel � our national medicare program. There is no reason that a minority government shouldn�t, in fact, be the best kind of government we can get. It forces elected officials to reach compromises designed to satisfy the desires of the greatest number of citizens rather than the interests of some narrow group. Kind of like Switzerland manages to do almost every day.

Election campaigns are exciting, and it�s all been wonderful fun. But now it�s time to roll up our toques and get back to the task of being mild-mannered and tut-tutting as our new government finds ways to waste our time and money. Until this shiny new bunch of clowns fails to do the job and we get to have another election.

Paul Richard Harris is an Axis of Logic editor and columnist, based in Canada. He can be reached at paul@axisoflogic.com

Read the Biography and additional articles by Axis Columnist, Paul Richard Harris