Wednesday, June 30, 2004
No Waves June to November, or
Fahrenheit 135/99/54/19/1
For the first time in about a quarter century, Canadians have opted for a minority government. Listening to people explain the dynamics of politics in this country means one is left with the impression that every four years or so the public shuffles to the polls to elect a dictator who governs unchecked until the next time a vote is called. At that point, citizens have the option of endorsing the tyrant, or giving the other contender a chance to rule. Complaining about majority governments is a national pastime, with most Canadians professing their wariness of unchecked power. However, what this latest election seems to be demonstrating is that while we complain about majorities, we feel uncomfortable in their absence.
If recounts, various judicial challenges, or renegade members opting to jump ship to join Prime Minister Paul Martin do not alter Parliament’s composition, the Liberals will be left with 135 seats, the Conservatives with 99, the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 19, the Bloc Quebecois 54, with one seat in British Columbia going to independent Chuck Cadman. What some see as a natural alliance between Liberals and the NDP falls just short of a majority in the 308-seat legislature. The Conservatives and Bloc, who agree more often than not, especially on issues of provincial rights and legislative free votes, have ruled out any formal coalitions, given leader Gilles Duceppe’s declarations about framing any action in terms of its impact on the Quebec electorate and society. Moreover, the Bloc favours many left-of-centre values, a point reflected in its stances on social policies, and disagrees with the Tories on foreign policy issues. Again, the Bloc’s stated mission is to always give primacy to Quebec interests within federal institutions.
An optimist may see great potential in this new legislature, noting that the fine balance will promote an atmosphere in which power-brokers and deal-makers will connive, convince, and pressure Members of Parliament (MP) on key issues. For the very first time, backbenchers will be empowered, and in theory, this practice could extend the life of parliament for a few years, if not longer. The realist may note that the legislature could stay intact from June until perhaps November, provided all contentious issues are either buried or skirted. By late autumn, one argument goes, the Liberals and the New Democrats will clash over budgeting, with the NDP demanding more for social policies, and the Liberals having to return to Martin’s traditional fiscal restraint. This could set in motion the chain of events that will do irreparable harm to the delicate political balance, force a vote of no confidence, ultimately triggering the dissolution of parliament.
While it is possible that the government could collapse before year’s end, that may just be unlikelier than perhaps many think. To be sure, several high-profile politicians, among them Paul Martin himself, described the 28 June result as merely ‘round one’, fuelling speculation that the next campaign is already in the earliest planning stages. Yet the Liberals have little incentive to go back to the polls in the near future, or at least any time before they can be absolutely certain of securing a majority mandate. And both the NDP and Bloc are savouring their electoral wins, also not in any hurry to appeal to the voters just yet. As for issues, they aren’t guaranteed to trigger the kind of rancor that might produce confidence votes, causing the minority to implode. The Liberals, over the past two years, have parted ways with their practices of fiscal restraint, and that alone may be enough to appease the NDP. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the parties, at least on specific issues, could in fact all find common ground. As long as the agenda consists of trade with the United States, and lumber and beef account for the bulk of the debating, there may even be unanimity, or something close to it. Certainly any comprehensive foreign policy review will have to be placed on the back burner. If the Liberals do decide they want much more to be spent on the military, or to redefine Canada’s role in the world, they might have to seek support from the Conservatives. However, working closely with the Tories may hurt the Liberal brand in any upcoming elections, making cooperation less likely, and a protracted foreign and military policy debate in the near future even more remote. If all the parties simply cling to a modest agenda, the average citizen may be hard pressed to explain how in practice this government has changed, if at all, from the status quo of the past two or three years.
Keeping a low profile on foreign policy issues may also be supported by developments in the international community. Certainly hostilities continue in Iraq, terrorism receives coverage in the daily news, and Afghanistan may need more soldiers as election date approaches in that country, but the kinetic pace that characterized responses to these problems is now moderated. Washington has stepped back from the Axis of Evil rhetoric. Now the suggestion is that diplomacy and measured politicking may supersede head-on confrontation. For example, ties have been reestablished with Libya, and realpolitik necessity may be redefining reactions vis-a-vis Iran. On 29 June even FOX News reported:
“Some foreign policy analysts say Washington may find it difficult to fight back.
‘The costs of the Iraq war are higher than just the soldiers who are dying and the money we are spending’ said Joseph Cirincione, director of the non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq squandered much of the U.S. authority in the Middle East and may have damaged America's ability to get help from Muslim states to fend off threats from Iran, he said.” [cited in Experts: Iran Ready to Take It to the Brink, by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, 29 June 2004, FOXnews.com. Posted at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124072,00.html].
Police and intelligence agencies are also stepping up to suggest that some threats may have been overestimated. Interpol is now on record noting that the chances of a terrorist attack during or around the Athens summer Olympics are remote. Popular culture is also on message. Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, in his recently released Fahrenheit 9/11, goes so far as to argue that much of the terrorist threat was manufactured to instill fear in a population that would react by being duped into supporting a war against Iraq.
Some Canadians may upset themselves worrying about the stability of the new government and about Ottawa’s ability to solve pressing problems, but I can hear him now. If Jean Chretien were still Prime Minister, he might just take time out this Canada Day to encourage Canadians to take a rest, enjoy the sun, get a tan, and maybe take in a few ballgames.
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
¶ 10:12 PM
Fahrenheit 135/99/54/19/1
For the first time in about a quarter century, Canadians have opted for a minority government. Listening to people explain the dynamics of politics in this country means one is left with the impression that every four years or so the public shuffles to the polls to elect a dictator who governs unchecked until the next time a vote is called. At that point, citizens have the option of endorsing the tyrant, or giving the other contender a chance to rule. Complaining about majority governments is a national pastime, with most Canadians professing their wariness of unchecked power. However, what this latest election seems to be demonstrating is that while we complain about majorities, we feel uncomfortable in their absence.
If recounts, various judicial challenges, or renegade members opting to jump ship to join Prime Minister Paul Martin do not alter Parliament’s composition, the Liberals will be left with 135 seats, the Conservatives with 99, the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 19, the Bloc Quebecois 54, with one seat in British Columbia going to independent Chuck Cadman. What some see as a natural alliance between Liberals and the NDP falls just short of a majority in the 308-seat legislature. The Conservatives and Bloc, who agree more often than not, especially on issues of provincial rights and legislative free votes, have ruled out any formal coalitions, given leader Gilles Duceppe’s declarations about framing any action in terms of its impact on the Quebec electorate and society. Moreover, the Bloc favours many left-of-centre values, a point reflected in its stances on social policies, and disagrees with the Tories on foreign policy issues. Again, the Bloc’s stated mission is to always give primacy to Quebec interests within federal institutions.
An optimist may see great potential in this new legislature, noting that the fine balance will promote an atmosphere in which power-brokers and deal-makers will connive, convince, and pressure Members of Parliament (MP) on key issues. For the very first time, backbenchers will be empowered, and in theory, this practice could extend the life of parliament for a few years, if not longer. The realist may note that the legislature could stay intact from June until perhaps November, provided all contentious issues are either buried or skirted. By late autumn, one argument goes, the Liberals and the New Democrats will clash over budgeting, with the NDP demanding more for social policies, and the Liberals having to return to Martin’s traditional fiscal restraint. This could set in motion the chain of events that will do irreparable harm to the delicate political balance, force a vote of no confidence, ultimately triggering the dissolution of parliament.
While it is possible that the government could collapse before year’s end, that may just be unlikelier than perhaps many think. To be sure, several high-profile politicians, among them Paul Martin himself, described the 28 June result as merely ‘round one’, fuelling speculation that the next campaign is already in the earliest planning stages. Yet the Liberals have little incentive to go back to the polls in the near future, or at least any time before they can be absolutely certain of securing a majority mandate. And both the NDP and Bloc are savouring their electoral wins, also not in any hurry to appeal to the voters just yet. As for issues, they aren’t guaranteed to trigger the kind of rancor that might produce confidence votes, causing the minority to implode. The Liberals, over the past two years, have parted ways with their practices of fiscal restraint, and that alone may be enough to appease the NDP. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the parties, at least on specific issues, could in fact all find common ground. As long as the agenda consists of trade with the United States, and lumber and beef account for the bulk of the debating, there may even be unanimity, or something close to it. Certainly any comprehensive foreign policy review will have to be placed on the back burner. If the Liberals do decide they want much more to be spent on the military, or to redefine Canada’s role in the world, they might have to seek support from the Conservatives. However, working closely with the Tories may hurt the Liberal brand in any upcoming elections, making cooperation less likely, and a protracted foreign and military policy debate in the near future even more remote. If all the parties simply cling to a modest agenda, the average citizen may be hard pressed to explain how in practice this government has changed, if at all, from the status quo of the past two or three years.
Keeping a low profile on foreign policy issues may also be supported by developments in the international community. Certainly hostilities continue in Iraq, terrorism receives coverage in the daily news, and Afghanistan may need more soldiers as election date approaches in that country, but the kinetic pace that characterized responses to these problems is now moderated. Washington has stepped back from the Axis of Evil rhetoric. Now the suggestion is that diplomacy and measured politicking may supersede head-on confrontation. For example, ties have been reestablished with Libya, and realpolitik necessity may be redefining reactions vis-a-vis Iran. On 29 June even FOX News reported:
“Some foreign policy analysts say Washington may find it difficult to fight back.
‘The costs of the Iraq war are higher than just the soldiers who are dying and the money we are spending’ said Joseph Cirincione, director of the non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq squandered much of the U.S. authority in the Middle East and may have damaged America's ability to get help from Muslim states to fend off threats from Iran, he said.” [cited in Experts: Iran Ready to Take It to the Brink, by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, 29 June 2004, FOXnews.com. Posted at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124072,00.html].
Police and intelligence agencies are also stepping up to suggest that some threats may have been overestimated. Interpol is now on record noting that the chances of a terrorist attack during or around the Athens summer Olympics are remote. Popular culture is also on message. Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, in his recently released Fahrenheit 9/11, goes so far as to argue that much of the terrorist threat was manufactured to instill fear in a population that would react by being duped into supporting a war against Iraq.
Some Canadians may upset themselves worrying about the stability of the new government and about Ottawa’s ability to solve pressing problems, but I can hear him now. If Jean Chretien were still Prime Minister, he might just take time out this Canada Day to encourage Canadians to take a rest, enjoy the sun, get a tan, and maybe take in a few ballgames.
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
¶ 10:12 PM
