Public Opinion and the Coalition
As a Professor of mine recently argued, political junkies, political science students, and the like are outside of the realm of ordinary Canadians when it comes to political issues. That is to say, we are out of touch with the views and rationalizations of average Canadians in terms of the political process and political developments.
Take, for example, the recent idea of a coalition govenrment replacing the Conservatives in the event that the Harper government loses the confidence of the House. Most of us who are politically aware were excited about the developments taking place over the past month. Though the idea of a Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition may have made us uneasy, we none the less accepted that such a development was well within the convention of our parliamentary democracy and our constitution. Ordinary Canadians on the other hand, seemed outraged and even disgusted by the possibility.
A recent Nanos public opinion poll appears to confirm this, to an extent:
In Quebec, 62 per cent wanted the opposition parties to have a chance to govern, while 30 per cent wanted an election called. Those numbers were reversed in western Canada, where 65 per cent wanted an election and only 29 per cent favoured an opposition coalition. Ontario and Atlantic respondents were more closely split, with 46 per cent and 49 per cent respectively favouring an election. Forty per cent in both regions favoured a coalition government
These numbers are hardly surprising. It is not unreasonable that Quebecers would welcome the opportunity for the Bloc to have a role in government, and the perks that would inevitablky bring to the Province . It is, however, somewhat of a paradox: a seperatist party propping up and activley participating in Her Majesty’s Government.
For those outside of Quebec, the public opinion can be explained by two factors. Firstly, while the coalition would not be undemocratic (as Harper has suggested), but it would be unCanadian. The lack of precedent is single handedly the most important reason for the coalitions lack of support. Secondly, is the prestiege, power, and influence that the Bloc would be given if granted an active role in the government. Indeed, this prospect does not resonate with the rest of Canada, especially those in the West.
4 Comments »
Leave a comment
About
-
Recent
- CUPE ban is out to lunch!
- Public Opinion and the Coalition
- Another Interesting Judicial Ruling
- Canadians Don’t Know Enough About The Holocaust
- Let Us Never Forget Our War Dead
- Totally unacceptable
- New Tone For The Coming Session of Parliament
- Ontario to get Equalization Payments Next Year
- On the 2008 Federal Election
- More Bad News for the Liberal Party
- Quebec Pair Prank Palin
- Harper’s new Cabinet: Better and Stronger
-
Links
-
Archives
- January 2009 (3)
- November 2008 (8)
- October 2008 (17)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
“The lack of precedent is single handedly the most important reason for the coalitions lack of support”
—-
I disagree. I think canadians could potentially support a coalition. Just not this coalition, and not this way. If these parties would have opened the door to the possibility of a viable coalition during the election campaign I think opposition would have been far less.
These parties choose the opposite, and explicitly ruled out the possibility. Voters gave support to these parties knowing they would not join forces in a coalition. To do so after the fact was a complete betrayal of that trust secured at the ballot box.
Dion could have stated what Ignatieff has state, “a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition”. This would have given him political legitimacy for the actions taken. Not doing so was anti-democratic and deserved the reaction and result.
As for the disconnect between regular canadians and the political class, I wrote a piece on my blog titled “Window into the Federation.”
It is my brief opinion piece on the happenings. Feel free to check it out if you like. darcymeyers.wordpress.com
Cheers
Thanks for the comment. I truly do not think that Canadians care about whether or not the parties were up front about the coalition. Rather, as I mention in my post, I think it is about the lack of precedent. Canada has had a long history of majority governments. Only in the past 50 years has this country began to experience minority ones. As such, Canadians never experienced coalition governments (much of which can be also attributed to our FPTP system).
Without this precedent, the idea of a coalition government is seen as foreign. Something those Western European countries have…. not Canada. Again, this is why I argue that it is not undemocratic, but is instead unCanadian.
Thanks for the response. Our comments are crossing wires here.
On my blog you stated “I do not agree with you that it goes against constitutional convention” in regards to the coalition and transfer of power.
And in your previous response you state “Without this precedent, the idea of a coalition government is seen as foreign”. With which I agree.
In my opinion if you further the argument of precedent it follows that precedent (or lack of) is the basis of conventions. Since there is no precedent, the constitutional convention follows the common practice.
It may not be undemocratic in the truest sense, as written within the constitution. But not all our democratic principles are explicit within our constitution (as conventions), and as the Supreme court has stated “‘democracy was one of “the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution.”
Coalitions are without precedent. The transfer of power, however, is not. As we saw in the King Byng affair, if a government cannot retain the confidence of the House, but another party can, they should be given the opportunity to govern. Hopefully this clears up what I was trying to say.