Canadian election neepery
Jan. 23rd, 2006 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacCanada is one country that still runs its governments on the classic system of the Ins and the Outs. The Liberal Party, having been in office about 2/3rds of the last century, once for a 22-year stretch, are the natural In Party. They know it, and they act like it: the resulting smugness and sense of entitlement is what leads to their occasional downfall, which comes about once every twenty years.
Today's election, which the Conservatives took with a weak 124-103 seat lead (81 seats for everybody else) is the third time since World War II that the party has swept out of the West and toppled a long Liberal reign by forming a minority government. (There is no tradition of coalition government in Canada: plurality parties, including the Liberals on a few occasions, form their own governments and negotiate for outside support from third parties. Since the Conservatives have been trending right in recent years, while of the two third parties one is socialist and the other is separatist, this could get interesting.)
On both previous occasions the Conservative minority government heralded a tidal wave that formed a massive Conservative majority, though in the second case it didn't happen immediately. The 1957 minority government of John Diefenbaker (Saskatchewan) skillfully parlayed their position into a majority the next year. The 1979 government of Joe Clark (Alberta) was less fortunate: deciding to act confidently as if they had a majority, they merely alienated the third parties and immediately collapsed. The great Conservative victory didn't come until five years later under Brian Mulroney (the only postwar Conservative PM not from the West, he was an Irish from an eastern Quebec mining town).
What happened next in both cases was very interesting: the worst governments in Canadian history. The Liberals may be smug and even crooked, but as politicians go they're basically competent. The Conservatives aren't. The Diefenbaker government was consumed by amateur ministers, lost their majority at the next election in 1962 and disappeared entirely a year after that, not to be seen again for another sixteen years. Mulroney did manage two terms, but the problems that developed particularly over constitutional issues were a nightmare. One journalist, asked to write an essay about every administration in Canadian federal history, submitted for Mulroney's the single sentence, "The less said about that the better." Even the West was disgusted, forming a new rebel party which nearly pushed the Conservatives out of the Commons altogether for a term. After ten years of name changes and false starts, the rebels and the rump reunited just before the 2004 election to form the new model Conservatives under Stephen Harper (Alberta again) who are therefore now where Dief was in 1957 and Clark in 1979.
Which model will they follow, if either, and will the final result be less disastrous than it was twice before? Dynamics are different this time. One factor in Diefenbaker's fall was that he simply did not get along with JFK. One reason for the Liberals' loss this time was that PM Paul Martin's anti-US rhetoric, otherwise acceptable to many Canadians, had gotten to the point where voters feared a disruption of the smooth trade on which their economy depends. Harper is a more pro-US figure; will he improve relations or will he merely suck up to Bush, and will the Bushies accept anything less?
On all these counts, Canada-watchers will wait and see.
Today's election, which the Conservatives took with a weak 124-103 seat lead (81 seats for everybody else) is the third time since World War II that the party has swept out of the West and toppled a long Liberal reign by forming a minority government. (There is no tradition of coalition government in Canada: plurality parties, including the Liberals on a few occasions, form their own governments and negotiate for outside support from third parties. Since the Conservatives have been trending right in recent years, while of the two third parties one is socialist and the other is separatist, this could get interesting.)
On both previous occasions the Conservative minority government heralded a tidal wave that formed a massive Conservative majority, though in the second case it didn't happen immediately. The 1957 minority government of John Diefenbaker (Saskatchewan) skillfully parlayed their position into a majority the next year. The 1979 government of Joe Clark (Alberta) was less fortunate: deciding to act confidently as if they had a majority, they merely alienated the third parties and immediately collapsed. The great Conservative victory didn't come until five years later under Brian Mulroney (the only postwar Conservative PM not from the West, he was an Irish from an eastern Quebec mining town).
What happened next in both cases was very interesting: the worst governments in Canadian history. The Liberals may be smug and even crooked, but as politicians go they're basically competent. The Conservatives aren't. The Diefenbaker government was consumed by amateur ministers, lost their majority at the next election in 1962 and disappeared entirely a year after that, not to be seen again for another sixteen years. Mulroney did manage two terms, but the problems that developed particularly over constitutional issues were a nightmare. One journalist, asked to write an essay about every administration in Canadian federal history, submitted for Mulroney's the single sentence, "The less said about that the better." Even the West was disgusted, forming a new rebel party which nearly pushed the Conservatives out of the Commons altogether for a term. After ten years of name changes and false starts, the rebels and the rump reunited just before the 2004 election to form the new model Conservatives under Stephen Harper (Alberta again) who are therefore now where Dief was in 1957 and Clark in 1979.
Which model will they follow, if either, and will the final result be less disastrous than it was twice before? Dynamics are different this time. One factor in Diefenbaker's fall was that he simply did not get along with JFK. One reason for the Liberals' loss this time was that PM Paul Martin's anti-US rhetoric, otherwise acceptable to many Canadians, had gotten to the point where voters feared a disruption of the smooth trade on which their economy depends. Harper is a more pro-US figure; will he improve relations or will he merely suck up to Bush, and will the Bushies accept anything less?
On all these counts, Canada-watchers will wait and see.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 06:47 pm (UTC)Perhaps I should also have added that every criticism that Paul Martin has made of the Bushies sounds right-on to me. Like many of the Canadian voters, I too might be nervous that his outspokenness might damage other aspects of US [government]-Canadian [government] relations, like trade policy. But, as I did say, I'd be skeptical that anything Harper could do would repair this, short of degrading himself and his country before a set of arrogant asshats.
On social policy I wouldn't worry for the moment. Harper couldn't have won if he hadn't dropped the right-wing social rhetoric he displayed in '04. But that change in tone means little. What means a lot is that he can't do anything in Parliament, for he has a minority and all three other parties support little things like gay rights. If he gets a majority at a later date, then we could worry. But Canadian politics are highly volatile, and I doubt a Bush-like administration would last more than one term.