What we learned is that the rally and the Coalition represent a deep frustration on the part of progressive Canadians that their values are dominant in Canada, but not in Parliament. The composition of the crowd also revealed a lack of grassroots engagement which must be rectified if the Coalition stands a chance of succeeding. But the real lesson from this weekend, and the political crisis generally, is that Canada’s political system is antiquated.
(We’re in the process of editing our footage and hope to have PSB’s first video up this week. In the meantime, you can check out some photos on Flickr.)
The Crowd
Considering the cold weather, the turnout at Nathan Phillips Square was impressive. The entire square was full and there were at least 1000 people in attendance. Judging by the signs people were holding, many were affiliated with various progressive organizations, like labour unions, environmental groups, anti-war coalitions, and advocates of proportional representation.
The event was hosted by Mary Walsh, who was very funny, but took a few jabs at Stéphane Dion. When the crowd gave Dion an uninspired welcome, Walsh said “Get a good round of applause in while you can, it may not last,” alluding to his embattled leadership. When Dion took the stage, he did little to regain people’s confidence. The crowd applauded politely, but his speech was flat and unconvincing. Granted, this was definitely an NDP crowd, but even to an objective observer he was clearly upstaged by Jack Layton.
Liberals should also be concerned about the composition of the participants. There was no evidence of a Liberal grassroots presence whatsoever. If the organizations and individuals linked to the NDP weren’t there, the turnout would have been embarrassing. As the crisis gives way to a impromptu campaign, the lack of engagement on the part of Liberal supporters is a huge problem.
The lone Conservative supporter we spoke to criticized the Rally for being filled with interest groups. He claimed that the competing rally at Queen’s Park was much more grassroots. “The grassroots were over at Queen’s Park today. The people who were bused in and organized and had pre-fab signs — expensive signs — were at the Coalition rally,” said Jim.
While we weren’t at the Conservative rally, he does have a point. There were very few homemade signs at the Coalition Rally and the flags of every major labour union in country were flying.
In fact, the heavy involvement of progressive interest groups may be something the Coalition is trying to hide, since no one could tell us who the rally’s organizers were. Normally you can find this out from the camera operators, but even they didn’t know. But one thing’s for sure: the Coalition needs to engage more regular people if it hopes to maintain legitimacy.
Why they came
The diversity of the crowd made the message of the Rally feel a little unfocused at first, but after talking to a few people it became clear that what brought them together was a deep feeling that their values are not adequately represented in Ottawa.
Equally prominent was the vitriol towards Stephen Harper; to them, he is the poster boy for everything that’s wrong with politics in Canada.
“I think this is a great opportunity to get rid of the guy who wants to kill our culture, eliminate the CBC, eliminate small parties, dominate through big money and corporations,” said Ken Sheppard.
Some, like Brendan Canning, one of the founders of Broken Social Scene, musical guests at the Rally, said they liked the idea of the Coalition because it represents a more conciliatory style of politics. “Now there seems to be something that seems a little more positive,” he said.
Most people said that they were unhappy with Harper’s management of the economy and his unwillingness to work cooperatively with the opposition parties.
“I think we’re in the middle of a deep financial crisis in Canada…and Harper will use it as an excuse to discipline and cut back on all kinds of sectors where he has political opponents,” said Catherine.
Others, echoing one of the Coalition’s slogans — “I’m part of the 62 per cent majority” — were frustrated by the fact that their mainstream views aren’t reflected in the government.
One thing that didn’t seem to bother most people we spoke to was prorogation. Jason Collett, a guitarist with Broken Social Scene, felt that the decision to prorogue Parliament was legitimate. “This is unprecedented as we all know, so it’s a tricky one,” he said.
Many otherwise informed participants thought that Harper was elected Prime Minister and thus refusing his request would have been undemocratic. One couple we spoke to that shared this view talked at length about how coalitions function in Germany, but didn’t seem to understand that Canadians do not elect their executive branch of government.
“Only in the most extreme circumstances can you envision a case in which a Governor General, an appointed person, could have the authority to overrule an elected Prime Minister,” said the woman.
This misconception is present in both camps and is probably pervasive in Canadian society. Consequently, Canada may only have a parliamentary system of government on paper.
Talking to Mario Silva, MP for Davenport, it was clear that the focus of the Coalition is about replacing Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. “The focus has to be on the economy, jobs and why Harper…does not want to address the issues facing Canadians,” he said.
Silva’s views were representative of both Coalition leaders’ speeches, which were reminiscent of an election campaign in full swing, promising to do everything from create jobs to invest in childcare.
What it means
The Coalition’s strategy of running a pseudo election campaign against the Conservatives in the next seven weeks may not actually change the composition of the House of Commons the next time Canadians go to the polls, which could be as early as February. We already had an election on all of these issues and Canada’s electoral system produced a perverse result. What makes the Coalition parties think they’ll fair better under first-past-the-post now? If the polls are any indication, Harper is actually gaining support as a result of the mess he created.
After attending the Rally on Saturday, I’m convinced that the political crisis is a manifestation of our antiquated political system. Even though none of the participants we spoke to put it in those terms, they clearly felt frustrated by being a powerless majority. And their ambivalence toward the Governor General’s role in all this suggests that that office is irrelevant too. Although the Parliamentary system has a long history of producing stable governments in Canada, it may actually be breeding instability today.
The only hope for the 62 per cent majority is that the Coalition stays together, takes power, and governs well enough for a progressive alternative (whatever its configuration) to win the ensuing election. Failing this, or Harper’s unlikely resignation, Canada is probably in store for a series of dysfunctional Conservative minorities or, much worse, a Conservative majority.
As a result, the quicker the Liberals can choose a new leader who inspires confidence, the better off the Coalition will be. Thankfully, that process seems to have been expedited. Then, the leaders of the Coalition must engage the real 62 per cent majority — everyday Canadians who, while not active in politics, expect their federal government to provide constructive leadership.
And while the economy will be the Coalition’s top priority, electoral reform must be on the list. Only then will the majority of Canadian voters be empowered.
Special thanks to Milan and Tyler B. for their help on this story.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Matt 03.06.09 at 4:00 pm
This was a thoughtful post. There are a lot of points to debate in respect of the now-dead coalition. I’ll limit myself to asking twoquestions.
First, does the fact that we elect our executive branch indirectly mean that there is no democratic issue with the way, and the reasons for which, the Coalition proposed to replace the executive? In other words, was it democratic just because it was legal?
Second, how were the results of the election “perverse”? As I understand your post, 62% of the votes went to “progressive” parties but those parties only occupy a bare majority of the seats in Parliament. There is a slight distortion between the number of votes and seat distribution, but even in a proportional representation system there would be a similar distortion. Moreover, the parties received their votes based on vastly different platforms and regional identities. Finally, the Conservative government may not be progressive per se, but as a result of a minority situation its substantive policies are far closer to progressive than they otherwise would be (as to partisanship and tactics, this relates to the fact that the different parties are different parties who compete by definition. It is not novel - witness bitter attacks on each other by the Liberals and NDP during the last two election campaigns). Bringing the Conservatives towards the centre is arguably a successful outcome from the progressive’s perspective.