Coup d’état or democratic normality?

Posted by admin on Jan 20, 2009 in Issues & Ideas | 0 comments

If you have been watching anything on Canadian news networks at all for the last two months, you would be familiar with the Coalition.

Ever since Stephen Harper received permission to prorogue parliament, and especially since Michael Ignatieff became leader of the Liberal Party, many people are wondering: what’s going to happen next?

This is a valid and necessary question, since it concerns Canada’s political future. However, the question I am drawn to ask – which I think tells a lot about Canadian history in particular and the deeper questions of political theory in general – is this: what does the Coalition tell us about what has happened in Canada since 1867?

Here’s what I mean. A coalition government is constitutional in a parliamentary model of government. Yet, there was an uproar on all sides accusing the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Québécois of being anti-democratic, and of trying to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister. This reveals a change in thinking from when the Constitution was written up to now.

A good summary of the role of the Canadian government, as understood in 1867, can be found in the introduction to section 91 of the Constitution: “peace, order and good government.” This clause gives the federal government jurisdiction over matters not explicitly given to the provinces. In effect, it reflects the older British political tradition of Toryism, which held high regard for social order and the role of government in maintaining such order.

Now, in 2009, British – or Red – Toryism has all but passed away. Canadians much prefer the Americans’ summary statement of the role of government: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This reflects the political philosophy of John Locke, based largely on individualism and one’s right to secure his or her own happiness. One could say that it is very egocentric. Each person is the sole owner of his or her body and property, and the only way that political power (ultimately the power to coerce) is legitimate is if the people give their consent to be governed.

It is easy to see how Locke is now identified as a key supporter of democracy, and how Canadians who have adopted the Lockean model of thinking are upset with recent developments in Ottawa.

We are now accustomed to and prefer the ultra-democratic method of directly voting for the leader of the nation; anything less than this is antidemocratic, unjust and a host of other political curse words. Canadians do not think about peace, order and good governance anymore. We only want minimal restrictions on our political freedom and we require government to ensure our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What this tells me is that Canada, which was originally formed – at least in part – in reaction to the American democratic experiment, has been subsumed by it. As early as 1965, the Canadian philosopher George Grant foresaw this. He lamented that the country and politics he loved simply could not survive in a world dominated by Lockean Liberalism.

In his prophetic words in Lament for a Nation: “As Canadians we attempted the ridiculous task of trying to build a conservative nation in the age of progress, on a continent we share with the most dynamic nation on earth. The current of modern history was against us.”

So it seems that the pull of individualism and me-centred politics has won the day; but can such selfish thinking really be sustainable? Only time will tell.