Before I went on break for the holidays, I wrote an update post about the escalating situation in Canadian politics around the Afghan detainee scandal and the potential impacts of a prorogued Parliament on that situation. Well, it seems that my speculation will be put to test with the December 30 decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor General Michelle Jean to do just that.
Firstly, it seems utterly clear to me that Harper had no good reason to prorogue Parliament, as he has felt little in the way of obligation to offer any such justifications to the public. Instead, it seems that Harper has made this decision to halt the momentum behind the work of the House of Commons special committee on Afghanistan and its inquiry into allegations around the improper transfer of detainees into torture scenarios. That is to say that while it is the Prime Minister’s constitutional right to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, it doesn’t mean that doing so to avoid potentially harmful political fallout (as has been done both in 2008 and in this instance) isn’t, as a pretty broad cross-section of experts and commentators have noted, an abuse of procedural power and in many respects anti-democratic.
The Conservative talking point on the issue is simply to repeat over and over again that the decision is “routine”, that it has been done in the past, and that there is nothing to get excited about. Which is, again, to say that they don’t have a valid reason for the decision, but they can do it so they did. Properly understood, proroguing occurs when Parliament has come to the end of its legislative agenda, but the Conservatives have a raft of pending Bills that will now be wiped clean. Killing legislation that your party has worked on extensively suddenly and without explanation is anything but routine, no matter what the Conservatives might say.
As for the impact of the decision on Canadian opinion, polling outfit Harris Decima has some numbers out that don’t exactly bolster my speculation that this decision would incite Canadians to action,
There has been much speculation over the degree of indifference demonstrated by those numbers, which is a fair and troubling conclusion of the poll. It would be interesting to see what those numbers look like now that the actual decision has come to pass — you’ll notice that the poll question places proroguing in the hypothetical because the poll was conducted between December 17 and 20 when rumors were swirling, but a full ten days before the actual decision and right before Christmas.
The other thing that I think is worth noting is how low actual support for the decision is, even among Conservatives. Overall, only 15% of Canadians actually think that proroguing Parliament was a good idea and of the 54% who actually registered a feeling one way or the other, an overwhelming 34% disapprove. It also isn’t exactly a feather in the cap of the governing party — who came to power in 2006 on the heels of the sponsorship scandal and promises of renewed accountability and relevance to Canadians — to say that their actions have been met with indifference from the majority of Canadians. By any other standard, such apathy, particularly given the record of low civic engagement of the 2008 federal election, would be the mark of failure in any vibrant democracy.
For the Conservatives, however, a state of disillusionment and disenfranchisement seems to be a-okay, full steam ahead. That kind of attitude towards the country is telling, to say the least.
The bright spot in all of this is a grassroots effort on Facebook to raise awareness and, in many cases, mobilize Canadians on the issue. Started by University of Alberta alumni Chris White, the group, whose membership stood at roughly 20,000 yesterday, has ballooned to a current membership of more than 38,000 people overnight (and growing) and is a hotbed of activity and discussion as an assortment of average Canadians weigh in with their thoughts about Harper’s decisions.
Of course, critics continue to argue that even 38,000+ people is a drop in the bucket, which, on the face of it, is true. But that analysis seems to miss something fundamentally important. The point is that this is yet another expression of Canadians’ passion about what happens in their country and their government. It is the flurry of activity and the throwing off of apathetic fatalism about the role of citizenship and the ability to effect change through one’s actions that should be the focus of attention, especially in the context of a country so deeply mired in lethargic malaise. If we wish to continue claiming that we live in a real democracy, efforts like this — even those as simple as joining a Facebook group and sharing information/thoughts/feelings — should not be overlooked or taken for granted.
At the end of the day, it is hard to tell where all of this is going, but regardless, I’m glad it’s happening and find myself bouyed by even the most humble of prospects. And needless to say, I’ve joined the Facebook group and encourage any of our like-minded Canadian readers to do the same.
Amy Tuteur, MD 
Russell Saunders 
Heidi 
Ryan Noonan 
Pierre Corneille 
darlene 
James Hanley 
Burt Likko
{ 2 comments }
Right, they keep calling it “routine”, but how routine was it to prorogue over a confidence vote? I can’t think of anyone else who had the balls to do that. The critics (thus perhaps biased) are saying we need to go back to Charles I (who failed to prorogue Parliament) in the 1600s for an example. Even if that’s not accurate, it’s amazingly brazen.
It’s not surprising at all that the Conservatives view indifference as a mandate. They’re not, when it comes down to it, especially interested in democracy or participation, or rather they’re only interested in such things if they bolster Conservative power. They’re a movementarian organization and have a movementarian mindset.
The proroguing issue isn’t on a lot of Canadians’ radar because debate about the issue it’s all springing from — torture, war, the various madnesses associated with the Afghan mission — is nonexistent. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan isn’t pinned in the popular mind to the incompetence of Bush and the neocons, although it arguably should be. Nevermind the patent absurdities swarming around the whole enterprise: it’s stamped with the imprimatur of international assent, American “bipartisan” consensus and a sort of gauzy, romantic version of Canada’s own locally-minted Pearsonism, all of which serve to smother any debate before it begins. Canadians cared about the last proroguing fiasco, one way or another, because there was something recognizably controversial at stake; this time, even acknowledging the need for a controversy is taboo.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }