On Monday, Canadians go to the polls to elect our Federal government. We're likely to elect a
minority Conservative government, with the progressive parties collectively holding the majority (the Bloc, while seperatist, are progressive socially).
As we're all about to see a minor deluge of gloating conservatives, especially in the US blogs, I thought it best to explain why Canada is not undergoing a seismic shift to the Right and is unlikely to do so in the forseeable future.
I argue this based on our system of government, our media and our electoral traditions: Parliamentary Government, the CBC and responsive, substantive discussions during elections.
First off, in following American politics in detail for the last 5 years, I've come to appreciate some systemic differences in the Canadian model, and I'm here to say
Canada's system rocks. I do admire parts of the US system, such as Senatorial approval of executive nominees. I plan to post on this in future. We may elect a socially conservative federal government on Monday, but I am not afraid this means anything but general fatigue with our Liberal party's prolonged tenure in power. In fact, I see some silver linings to this, as I will explain.
Canada has a system I calling truth-biased as I see the following 3 facets of our system as entrenching a bull-shit filter, which are largely absent in the US.
Parliamentary Government and Question Period
I'm going to skip the minutia of our legislative process, and focus on the one thing I think most effectively checks the unbridled stupidity evident in George Bush type leaders: Direct questioning by a hostile, partisan and unrestrained opposition party.
While parliament is in session (typically about half the year), every week-day at 2pm, the members of parliament get 1 hour to ask questions of the government (meaning the Prime Minister and Cabinet). Questions are allocated by representation in the house, meaning parties with more seats get more questions. The leader of the Oppostion typically opens, and usually with a question for the Prime Minister. Other members of the biggest opposition party will then ask questions of cabinet ministers, based on portfolios in a system called the "Shadow Cabinet."
Members of the PM's own party also ask questions, though these tend to be intentional soft-balls for the responder to grand-slam and make the government look good.
Questions from the opposition are blunt. They critique government programs, policies, and the personal behaviour of government members. There is very little expectation of "collegeal chumminess" or any such notion. Questions and answers are addressed to the speaker, rather than directly posed to maintain a degree of decorum.
Typically, few Canadians watch this on CPAC (our C-Span), but the media watch it, and choice highlights make it into the evening news and daily newspapers. They don't seem to have any footage archived sadly, but when our next Parliament starts, they will have a Podcast of it.
Now imagine Bush and his cabinet had to face such questions regularly. The results would be withering. Bullshit does not endure under such scrutiny. I note hopefully how interested the US political discourse is in this type of direct questioning - whenever a cabinet member (or supreme court nominee) must answer a congressional committee's questions, typically this makes a big splash. I think it's just human, we thrive off conflict, and like the drama. Question period provides daily doses of this. It has the simple effect of exposing untenable positions. You couldn't get away with claiming Iraq and 9-11 had a connection in Canada. "Shot down in flames" wouldn't begin to describe it.
Some argue cynically that it doesn't matter, and true, in majority governments question period rarely has a measurable impact on policy. Certainly no one should expect that Democratic senators being able to grill the President on, say, secret prisons would result in the President saying "By God, you're right!" and closing them. The impact of these exchanges is more for the public at home, than to convince any politician of any view. A blog I read, Doctor Biobrain, recently argued that the Supreme Court nomination hearings at least have the effect of preventing the very worst nominees from getting through. He was thinking of Miers and Bork. It may not stop the Alitos and Thomases, but that doesn't make the process useless. Question period is much the same. You rarely see a huge "a-ha" where the government gets burned badly, because the government works to prevent this. In effect, they have an incentive to govern well.
As an example of the effectiveness of Question period: Our last elected Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, hated the media, and did not hold a news conference for over 2 years during his second majority term. We're all familiar with press-conference avoidance in Bush, but Mulroney still had to face opposition questioning regularly through that period. In short, the people do not have to hope their elected leaders will do them a favour and answer questions. It's simply part of our system.
To progressives, I ask a question: It seems to me the US Constitution is rather vague about the form in which the President must report on the State of the Union. Could congress demand the president and his cabinet answer their questions, in place of an annual one-way speech? Would that be constitutional? If so, I suggest such a reform become a part of a Democratic platform.
I ask because I think there is a consensus that the media has failed utterly to provide this service. Thus, we have seen this President, and several prominent members of his administration walk around repeating logical fallacies, asserting demostratably untrue statements and the like. The media has proven they can be bent to the will of the governing majority. Opposition parliamentarians have so far avoided this trap. They lack many of the burdens the media have - accusations of bias, loss of access and complicit bosses in the large corporations they report to.
The CBC
Naturally, our conseravtives parrot the line that the Canadian media, led by the CBC, are against them. It's a useful myth, and for them I'm sure it motivates their true-believers, but so far Canada's mainstream has escaped this belief in a biased media. I humbly suggest to them, as an aside, that if the media portrayal of you isn't to your favour, perhaps you need to consider that the facts themselves are not to your favour, and if you don't like what you're seeing in the mirror held to you by the media, perhaps the mirror is not to blame.
As public broadcasters, the CBC has again and again proved itself comprehensive, not subject to salacious distractions (like missing blonde girls in Aruba) and able to focus on the important stories of the day. Many Kos readers know the Fifth Estate to be a par-excellence investigative journalism show, and many CBC journalists still maintain high levels of respect. Peter Mansbridge is easily our Walter Cronkite.
I don't know how this could be translated into the US system, as it seems a huge fight to ever restore PBS into any state of strong government financing. However, I note that PBS is by far the best news outlet for the US too, as evidenced by the high degree of factual awareness its viewers had in that famous study on Iraq war myths.
For Canada, it means the Conservatives can not rely on a complicit media to sell their selfish bullshit as beneficial to the majority. Numbers get crunched, policies get dissected and hard questions are asked.
After all, if media and news are a vital part of democracy such that freedom of the press should be ensrined in both our constitutions, why leave it to the randomness and profit-driven private sector? It seems to me, an arms-length public funded national news channel is an essential part of a modern democracy.
Substantive Discussion
This one is a tradition, and not formally a part of our system, but I think the confluence of the impact of the CBC and Question Period. Canadian politicans actually face unscripted questions from the public during elections.
As evidence, the CBC held a series of 1 hour programs called "Your Turn" featuring the federal party leaders, Peter Mansbridge moderating, and audience questions (with opportunity for follow up). Check out transcripts: Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and Jack Layton.
Further, examine the form of our debates. They actually feature direct interactions (with some limits). Morons do not survive such conditions. Kerry was able to trash bush 3 times even without the ability to trap him in direct questioning, imagine what the former Prosecutor could have done to him in a true tete-a-tete.
Why a conservative minority is a little good
We're proud of how we critique our own when they fuck up, and I believe in that. The federal Liberals have been entrenched in power for almost 13 years. Chretien was fairly authoritarian with his own party, and like any governing party, they've attracted a fair amount of corruption. My theory is that dishonest people will slip into any government over time, so it becomes beneficial to turf them every so often just to remind them that they govern at our suffrance.
Further, I am actually encouraged to see signs of life for the Conservatives in Quebec. For the past decade, it has been basically impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority government because they were shut out in Quebec. I like the idea of having 2 vibrant electable federal parties. The NDP serve as a fine social conscience up here, but without a serious threat of forming a government, they do not check the potential arrogance of Liberal Prime Ministers. I don't want the Liberals going into every election knowing they'll win, so the Conservative gains in Quebec will keep them on their toes. It also says good things to the future of the Progressive wing of the Conservative party. Having to balance between Alberta and Quebec will keep the worst excesses of Conservative social policy in check, should they form a majority government Monday, or in future.
Last, it of course says federalism is far from dead or dying in Quebec. It was hurt by the Sponsorship scandal of course, but can come back as Quebecois see the arrogance and corruption in the Liberals punished by the rest of Canada. The message that "federalists will do anything to trick Quebecois into staying" loses force when they see English Canada also pissed off at the Liberals.
All that said, I would of course prefer the Liberals win on Monday.
Why I don't fear Harper (too much)
Mostly for the above 3 reasons. American Conservativism has succeeded so well because they have this elaborate system of reinforcement which serves to convince the public that the policies actually benefit them. Canada has some pretty dynamite stop-guards against that. If Harper gets a minority, he'll have to govern from the centre to try and win a majority in the inevitable next election. He's committed to some corruption reform measures, and so will have to put them in. I do fear he will try and do things on the sly which chip away at Canada's truth-biased system, so I hope Canadians will be on guard for the type of things the US conservatives did with the faux think-tank network and lobbyist collusion.
Last, he isn't, at least, a moron. The 3 things above ensure that Canadian federal leaders are a pretty sharp bunch. We don't have any "I'd like to have a beer" meme killing our bright leaders. Nor a hang up on their military records (it never comes up at all, and I can't think of a Canadian Prime Minister who served in the military). Harper has been hurt by his image as a technocrat, but that was mostly for certain robotic behaviours he exudes. His being smart might make him more dangerous in some eyes, but I like to think I am comforted knowing my PM is not going to be an empty-suit. Evil maybe, but evil and substantive. That he will be the primary source of his government's policies, not some invisible cabal of neo-conservatives.
Canada will survive a Conservative government, and continue as a progressive nation. This is a blip, wrought of frustration at a seemingly permanent governing Liberal majority.