When the formal coalition agreement was signed between the Liberal and NDP parties a while back, Harper reacted swiftly, spreading disinformation by claiming that the coalition government was illegitimate and a constitutional coup. The successful framing by the Tories of the issue even spooked rookie Michael Ignatieff and his advisor, who then unilaterally cancelled the agreement between the two parties and agreed to support Harper's minority government instead of forming the replacement government.
Since then Harper's constitutional mythmaking (the Harper constitutional elephant) has almost become accepted by the chattering classes, and by Liberal bloggers and Liberals, as fact, even though it is legally incorrect.
As a coalition government might well replace Harper come November, let's set the record straight on what is legal about coalitions.
And let's turn to the Professor Russell's article some time ago in the National Post for a quick summary of the issues:
"These precedents and many, many others illustrate the basic point that in parliamentary democracies we elect parliaments not prime ministers, and that the Governor General (or the presidential head of state in a republican parliamentary system) must be advised by ministers who are supported by a majority in the elected house of parliament. .. The no-confidence vote is to take place next Monday. If the government loses that vote, the rules of parliamentary democracy give Harper two options. He can tender his government's resignation to the Governor General and clear the way for Madame Jean to ask Stéphane Dion to form a Liberal-NDP coalition government. Or he can ask the Governor General to dissolve the 40th Parliament so that we can elect the 41st Parliament.
The first option – resignation – would be entirely constitutional. It involves no "usurpation" of power but is an honourable way out of the present impasse.
If Harper were to take the second option, the Governor General would have to consider carefully whether to grant his request for a dissolution. Her primary concern must be to protect parliamentary democracy. A steady diet of elections – four in four years – is not healthy for parliamentary democracy.
If there is an alternative government available that has a reasonable prospect of being supported for a period of time by a majority in the House of Commons, she would have reason to decline Harper's request. Harper would then have to resign, and the Governor General would commission Dion to form a government.
If this happens, again there would be no "usurpation" of power but a proper application of the rules and principles of parliamentary democracy. It has been very disturbing to hear over the last few days, from people who should know better, wild unparliamentary theories about our system of government. Elections are not simple popularity contests in which the leader whose party garners the most votes gets all the power.
I am greatly concerned that there is so little public knowledge of the constitutional rules that govern our parliamentary system of government. These rules are not formally written down in a legal text or taught in our schools."
So all Liberal bloggers and party members who still believe the misstatements of the Tories, lissen up: coalitions are legal, constitutional, honourable and an essential part of our parliamentary traditions.
Don't buy into Harper's myth making.
