Op-Ed: The Power of Minority

With election day just two weeks away, Canadian voters have much to mull over. From the policies of the party's, to the personalities of the politicians, there is much to consider. One thing is clear is though, Canadians should want a minority government.

In a recent article I brought forward an idea that I did not fully explain. And in hindsight, this idea was truly the fundamental thought of the article, and so to not make clear that point was to not qualify my argument. So with the thoughts outlined in that article in mind (and if you missed it, it’s not necessary reading for this article to be of interest), let’s look at why and how Canadians are best served by a minority government. Although there are many reasons to desire a minority government, the greatest reason can be put simply; with minority governments there is forced bipartisan effort, and forced bipartisan effort is the best available check and balance against both errors in judgement and corruption. In a minority system two major parties – each with differing governing ideologies and representing different people from across the country – must come together and agree on the fundamentals (and often times the nuances) of an initiative in order to enact it. This is not to say that nothing can be accomplished in a minority government without bipartisan agreement (established legislation grants minority governments many executive powers, allowing broad and general strategies to be performed without limitation), but it does mean that to pass legislature – to change the nation permanently – there must be approval from the members of two or more political parties. Consider the current landscape in the Canadian House of Commons. There are (currently) 304 seats in the House of Commons, meaning that for legislation to be approved, the governing party has to have 153 members of parliament vote for approval. Since 2006 the Conservative Party has had between 124 and 127 seats occupied in the House of Commons (the changes are due to municipal elections that have occurred since the last federal election). The other three (sorry Green Party) parties had between 103 and 95 (Liberal Party), 51 and 48 (Bloc Québécois), and 29 and 30 (NDP) seats taken, respectively. In turn, in order for legislation – i.e. large-scale, long-term plans – to be approved, the Conservative Party had to cross party lines and convince at least 29 other MP’s (26 after the municipal elections) that their plan was worth commissioning. Two or more parties, multiple voices, one plan. Howard Cody’s recent article, which appears in the American Review of Canadian Studies and is titled “Minority Government in Canada: The Stephen Harper Experience” elicits another valuable point (this article should also be read by anyone interested in understanding the benefits of a mixed-member proportional electoral system); Harper may be able to govern most effectively in a minority government:

“Although Harper understandably desires a majority to deliver him from Canadian minorities' frayed nerves, his minority situation under plurality elections actually serves him well. Optimally, it may save him from himself. (…) Especially in foreign affairs, Harper benefits from the absence of a coalition frame of mind when all three opposition parties, each one for its own reasons, repudiate his policies. Still, minorities force a negotiation democracy that the tightly controlling Harper would escape in a majority. Even in his minority he allegedly treats his cabinet ministers as ‘servile minions’ and is disinclined to ‘move beyond the perimeters of his own head for advice.’ Nonetheless, Harper's minority forces him at least occasionally to move beyond those perimeters, to the nation's benefit and his own as well. (As noted by constitutional authority Eugene) Forsey (…) when a minority needs support from opposition parties, that support ‘may not only help a government to do good and sensible things but also prevent it from doing bad and foolish things.’”

If Cody is correct, Harper is better off in a minority government, as are all Canadians. The central rationale behind that assertion is that with a majority government, Harper – who already claims to give minimal power to his cabinet leaders – would no longer have to listen to opposition leaders; which means errors in his own judgement could manifest in the policies and legislature that directs Canada for years to come. And this brings us to the main drawback of majority governments. Majority governments deafen the words of opposition parties – whether dissentious, approbative, or thought provoking – in favour of streamlining the plans and initiatives of one party, thereby moulding the nation in that party’s image. One party, one voice, one plan. There are of course negative aspects to minority governments. For one, it can take a long time for multiple parties to agree on an issue. Moreover, the constant threat of confidence votes often times paralyzes governments in such a way that causes them to focus on short-term public relation campaigns, instead of handling and responding to the long-term issues facing our nation; this problem is particularly acute in Canada. But the benefits do outweigh the drawbacks. In a minority government Canadians can be assured that the politicians on Capital Hill, from the prime minister right down to the last MP, are working together – with the many view points of Canadians in mind – to solve the problems that face our nation. In the once in a lifetime type scenario where a truly great leader arrives, Canadians then may want to grant that person a majority government; but with any leader that is not truly exceptional, the Canadian people are better served (via the checks and balances provided) by a minority government. Harper (as said in the article I first wrote) has been a good leader, but not a great one. His apparent knack for managing the economy may negate his apparent negligence of the environment, but it does not provide enough confidence to warrant entrusting him with majority government powers. On top of this, the bipartisan initiatives that are created in a minority government are likely to both last longer (because the interests of two or more political parties are being satisfied) and to be more effective in the short term (as minds from two or more political parties must analyze the policies). In short, following October 14th, 2008, I hope to see a political landscape much like the one we have today. Minority governments serve all Canadians, not just Canadians who subscribe to one specific brand of politics. According to Cody’s study “44 percent of Canada's voters are ‘apartisans’ — that is, they identify with no party”. This means that there is likely a large demographic of people (like myself) who don’t want to see one particular party in power as much as they want to see the nation prosper. In a majority government, the forced bipartisan effort that is often the foundation of progressive legislation is forgone in favour of vesting absolute power in the hands of one person for up to five years. That prospect does not sound progressive to me, it sounds dangerous. While it is true that more may ‘get done’ in a majority government, the end results of those actions may be less than ideal. And in government, I’ll take quality over quantity any day. Thanks for reading. GRMM