|
|
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
|
|
skippy HAS TWO PRIME MINISTERS
My U.S and international readers probably believe Canada is all about gay marriage,decriminalized marijuanna and Members of Parliment calling Americans "bastards." But there's more - so much more. We have political chaos, for example. The longest hate-fuck in Canadian political history is coming to its ugly denoument in the next 3 months. You see, as I write this, Canada effectively has two Prime Ministers.
How could this happen in a modern, industrialized democracy you ask? Some backround is necessary. As opposed to the United States, Canada operates under a palimentary system. There is no division between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, they are one and the same. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are all members of the House of Commons (there are occasional exceptions, but these are few and far between.) To become Prime Minister, one must first be elected leader of his party and that party must then win a plurality of seats in the Parliment. Canada has two different scenarios of government, majority - where the government has more seats than all of the other parties combined, and a minority- where the government has more seats than any other party but a short of a total majority. As the House of Commons currently consists of 303 seats a party must win 152 to form a majority government. A Canadian government, once elected has a constitutional mandate of 5 years however, as the government can call an election at its convienence, it is rare that Parliment sits for that period. The current Liberal government, elected in November of 1993 was subsequently re-elected in June of 1997 and October of 2000.
Once elected, a Prime Minister with a majority government exercises near total power. An American president may only propose legislation to the Congress and all of his Cabinet and Judicial appointees must be confirmed by the Senate. A Canadian Prime Minister, as head of the government (though not of state, that title belongs to the Queen of England) holds the power of appointment and introduction of legislation as a personal perogative. Unlike the British form of parlimentary democracy, which relies on Cabinet unanimity, parlimentary power resides almost exclusively in the person of the Prime Minister. If a British party leader is opposed by a majority of his Cabinet, this usually leads to a party vote of confidence (which is what toppled Margret Thatcher). Should the leader lose that vote, a party convention is called and a new leader is elected. In Canada, if members of the Cabinet revolt, those members are dismissed - in some circumstances, even removed from the party's parlimentary caucus. A majority government in Canada is as close to an elected dictatorship as is possible in a democracy.
Jean Chretien was elected Leader of the Liberal Party (and thus Leader of the Opposition) in March of 1990, handily defeating Paul Martin Jr. The leadership contest between Chretien and Martin was a bitter one and Chretien would have been content to never again have to hear Paul Martin's name again. However, upon the election of a Liberal majority government in November of 1993, the Liberals found that the federal deficit and debt were far worse than previously anticipated. Chretien's reputation as a left-leaning social democrat did little to reassure the banks (which are far more powerful in Canada than Europe) and business community. As a means of reassuring these communities Chretien appointed Martin Minister of Finance. The tensions between the two not only remained unresolved, they deepened.
As Canada's deficits were reduced Martin recieved the credit and was increasing seen as the heir apparent to the Liberal throne. Martin, who had seen his father (a Minister in the Liberal government of Lester Pearson) lose the Leadership to Pierre Trudeau in 1968, did nothing to dissuade this view. As scandals began to pile up on the Chretien government several backbenchers began to see Martin as a viable alternative. These manauvers came to a head in the fall of 2000, when to defeat a Liberal party convention Leadership Review, Chretien called a general election.
The circumstances of the Parliment in the 1990's allowed Chretien to call premature and unnescessary elections without consequence. Prior to 1993, there were only three parties in Parliment, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives (PC's) and the New Democratic Party (NDP). In the 1993 election the governing PC's fractured three ways. In western Canada, the vote went to the populist Reform (later Canadian Alliance) Party and in the Quebec the Conservative vote went to the soveringtist Bloc Quebecois. Consequently, The PC government was reduced from the 188 seats won in the 1988 election to 2 in 1993. Due to the regional split in the Conservative vote, the Liberals came up the middle to win an unprecedented three majority governments. So long as the situation persisted, Chretien could call elections with impunity with no risk of actually losing power.
But the discontent with the Prime Minister within the Liberal Party had gained such strength that Chretien had promised that he would step aside shortly after winning his third majority. As is true with most of Chretien's promises, it was forgotten after the election. Then the leadership of Stockwell Day in the Alliance was undermined by his own caucus, which was watched by Liberal insiders with great interest. Following Day's removal in mid-2002, Chrieten saw the writing on the wall and in August he announced his intention to retire in February of 2004. This was a highly unusual move. Ordinarily, the time between a party leader's announcement and his departure is measured in weeks. Chretien left a window of a year and a half. Several of Chretien's cabinet ministers began fundraising for an eventual leadership contest. And this began to undermine the government.
Chretien did not help matters by sending mixed signals to the leadership hopefuls. One month he would encourage his ministers political ambitions as a means of undermining Martin, whom he now detested. But once Martin gained strength Chretien ordered all cabinet members to cease all independant political activity. Martin refused and in May of this year, Chretien fired him from cabinet. In October, the Liberal party elected its delegates to the Leadership Convention scheduled for November 15th. Martin's pledged delegates won between 85-90% of the seats on the convention floor, making the convention itself a mere formality. For all intents and purposes, Paul Martin Jr. is now Prime Minister-Elect of Canada.
Martin's status would be irrelevant were Parliment not in session. However, it is and conducting business. On the week of October 20, the government gave VIA rail a grant of $700 million dollars. Martin then informed VIA that none of this money is to be spent until he is installed as Prime Minister and could review the expenditures. $600 million was budgeted to the Department of National Defence, which its Minister announced would not be touched until the establishment of the Martin government.
Then on the evening of October 28th, Parliment voted on a Bloc Quebecois motion that would've forced Chretien to step down following the Liberal Leadership Convention on November 15th. Several Liberal backbenchers were prepared to vote for this motion until it was explained to them that Chretien would view this as a vote of no confidence and would call yet another election.The Bloc motion was handily defeated.
The Canadian government is now in a circumstance unique in its history.The most centralized and powerful of western governments is now paralyzed. The ministerial departments will no spend monies allocated them by the Prime Ministers until said expenditures are authorized by the incoming Prime Minister and the incoming Prime Minister does not yet have the authority to propose or authorize spending or policy establishment. For the first time in Canadian history, a majority government is powerless, immobilized from within.
And this is expected to continue for months.
If someone can figure out a way for me to defect to the United States, I welcome your imput
|
|
|
| |
