myata

I was responding to a certain comment and it's in the context of that exchange that my message should be read. So, one more time, 1) Why would the ability of unelected "viceroy" to decide on whether to allow the majority of the elected House to form a government be "perfectly democratic"? Detailed explanatioin, please. 2) How exactly is it different from another unelected official (King) deciding on which government would govern his people, and what exactly is ridiculous in that parallel? And, 3) Which country's political system allows unelected official, appointed by the government in power, to decide on allowing the majority in the elected Parliament to exercise their will (not in the times historical, but now, in this tenth year of the 21 century)?

Well of course from that perspective, a good and benevolent King ruling all and everything to the good of all (and everything) would also be "perfectly democratic", and there's nothing left to discuss, welcome to the ages of King Arthur, etc. I want to talk to individuals who value independence and real, practical empowerment of our elected representatives, and for us the question of why an unelected official appointed should be deciding on the majority's will to form a government, would be far from clear. As clear as a day is that it's got little to do with open, transparent and vibrant democracy.

OK, that translates as "unelected official appointed by the government in power decides whether to give the opposition a chance to form the government". Thanks for pointing it so succinctly. I'll leave it up to you to see for yourself how democratic the procedure is. That's another story, thank you. Indeed, unlike e.g. a president elected by people in a separate universal vote, should a leader of minority faction be allowed to dissolve the Parliament against it's will? (if the House voted to have election, that's no problem with me). How and why would that signify the "supremacy of Parliament" in practice rather than on paper?

It it weren't true, we wouldn't have every single "government in trouble, confidence motion may fail" discussion started with "do we really need an election now". It it weren't true, you'd be able to point to the examples of majority coalitions governing the country without moronic or dishonest - or both - at the same time - accusations of undemocratic plot, coup d'etat and yada. OK may be more than can be counted on the fingers of one hand in the entire glorious history of our democracy (I don't know any). No I'm not necessarily saying that coalition governments are better than the majority ones, only that they are better than a government that lost democratic mandate to govern hanging on to power via undemocratic ploys, or blackmailing by threat of election. That is not a modern, open and functional democracy as I understand it.

I guess we're talking about different things (democracy in general - whatever it may mean, given that e.g. Afghanistan is also a "democracy", now) vs. particular variant of it that exists here in this country, and now. No, Youtube won't do your brain's work for you, at least I very much doubt that.

That may have been so, if willing factions in the Parliament, having ensured support of majority, could then form a government of their own. That is not the case, as the government in power even having lost confidence of the House, could and would continue to hold on to it under a threat to cause an election, often completely unnecessary. This causes all kind of political and about games, instead of one thing real and functioning democracy should be about, clear and unhindered expression of democratic will. To M-H: I also said that the fact that something has worked in the past is no guarantee of the future, just check your old TV or that first car. Or, in the social science / history, any number of societies that went away having been unable to adjust to changing reality.

Of course, whatever King does, must be for the best of us all. Long live the King! (ahead to the past, full steam).

The system, as designed in the dawn ages of governance politics, was intendended as the ultimate check on the governing power, and not necessarily as an instrument of efficient and direct expression of the will of majority. We inherited it as-is without any signifcant modifications or adjustments for the modern age. As a result, it contains a variety of instruments, ploys and outlets that allow governing power to influence, mitigate and even obstruct the expression of will by the majority of elected House. It is true that ultimately it contains the test allowing the House to constrain the government; it is also true that it grants it undemocratic instruments and avenues to interfere with, delay and obstruct the will of the House. Therefore the statement of supremacy of the Parliament cannot be taken as true anymore, not in de facto state of affairs. I agree that the system has been functioning reasonably well till now, not in the least due to broad democratic tradition outside of political domain. I also said that no past is a guarantee of the future to be taken for granted. The situation today may be changing, though slowly and gradually, with aging population possibly having much more interest in stability and comfort than in the active political process. Combined with compromised political system heavily skewed to favouring the government in power, it may give us all a cause for concern. Ultimately, no system could help if population looses interest to democracy, however a well tuned system with adequate checks on the government that ensures transparency of government's operation and unquestionnable supremacy of the elected House would be far more efficient in detecting and addressing such problems.

Except we're lacking, some may say severely, two important things: One, a real and effective ability of the Parliament to hold the government responsible on any issue, if the majority of the elected House so decides. As things stand now, i.e this government behaves itself toward the Parliament now, the question, who holds the upper end in the balance of power appears far from obvious. And two, the ability of the Parliament to replace government that has lost its confidence promptly and efficiently, without interference and unnecessary obstacles. Let's remember that on the far end of the spectrum, the one we're gradually moving toward through government asserting itself at the expense of the elected Parliament, would be a virtually irreplacible government, i.e. a dictatorship. Even the best system does not give any guarantees, just as the best car won't assure accident free driving. That's not a reason to hang on to generations old half broken clanking drone right till the moment it falls apart in the middle of the road. To that, I subscribe completely. Our democracy will only be as good as our will to support and defend it, and if that will goes out the window, well.. history has many examples what happens next, no need to go guessing.

That may be a part of the problem, though still, the ability of the elected House to work efficiently and without obstruction should not depend on internal processes of political parties. Ultimately, it comes down to the question of where the seat of power is vested, the elected Parliament, or the government that may very well be a minority faction. And if it's vested with the Parliament, in an open and functional democracy there has to be a working and efficient process for the elected Parliament to remove any government that has lost its confidence. Without interference, obstraction, obstacles or unnecessary expenses. Any complications in doing so result in a compromised democracy.

Too bad his strategic skills is no match to his brilliant tactics. Take that most recent shot in the foot, just when it started to look right and promising. I wonder (when they'll start asking those questions).

Indeed, the problem isn't with Harper really, it's with Mike (and Jack, etc).

Only if one is perfectly unable to understand that different viewpoints (and directorial solutions to bring them to the viewer) can be used in the same story (film, book, etc).

Right, but what good will it do for me (and our country's democracy)? Iggy's power itchy hands replacing Harper's on the same old and dusty and screeching steering wheel? How would that state of affairs make things better? One has to be blindly partisan to not notice a much bigger and scarier issue behind Harper's obsession with power and control. Yes, our outdated political system allows control freaks with dictatorial tendencies to do many more things than they should be allowed to in an open, transparent and functional democracy. That's not good for the country and the democracy, no matter the colour of the control freak that sticks to the power lever. I'll say it one more time, the only way to get something real out of this situation is to put both behemoth parties "on probation" (how ironic). Deliver real, meaningful change or don't count on our support, period.

And yet, Iggy won't call an election over Harper's prorogations. Because defending the democracy isn't important enough for him to "stoop"? Or because he wants it all for himself, as-is? Or because he is unsure of success? Who knows, or cares? That's the really sad part of the story. Voting CPC means supporting Harper's kingly atticks and by side effect further diminishing of the elected Parliament. And voting for Iggy's Liberals means status quo, plain and simple aka inviting anybody else in the right mood (and the right place) to follow Chretien, Harper's etc lead and example. Maybe Iggy himself, who knows (granted, with the right, i.e Liberal justification)? No, folks, it seems to me that if something good was destined to come out of this situation, we'd have to take the affair from political tweedledums/dees and into our hands. Maybe by writing our MP, but also our opposition riding associations, telling them loud and clear: "it's Liberals for real democracy, or Liberals out, forever" (OK, maybe for awhile, if necessary, extended while). If not their lofty learned in matters political minds, then maybe our lowly prodding could make them notice the real meaning and significance of this matter for the country and its democracy.

All true, yet it's very disappointing and even worrying to see that the leading opposition party does not seem to notice the serious flaws within our political system that this PM's behaviour has clearly exposed. The Liberals are OK scoring points a la "we are working" whatever it's supposed to mean, they are nowhere on the radar screen on issues of serious democratic reforms, non-partisan cooperation in the House, moving toward a more proportional representation and so on. It appears that the system would suit Iggy just fine as it is, as long as the power drops in his hands. I seriously think that at this time there doesn't appear to be an alternative to saying to Iggy's Liberals very clearly, real democratic reforms leading to open, transparent and functional democracy NOW, or no more support, now or ever. A government abusing democratic system for its own benefit is still not as bad as a completely dysfunctional democracy because nobody is interested or believes in a possibility of positive change. It's "Liberals in coalition for real democracy" or "NO Liberals", as far as I'm concerned.

Government making me proud? I'd call it level 2 alarm bell. For those who care (needless to say that helping others in severe distress is the right thing. But is it "the government" that should be taking the credit for it, and should it make me proud of it, the government, as opposed to e.g. my country, my community, my democracy, etc??)

Good point (though the analogy between coalition and prorogation still needs to be qualified; was the idea of coalition really so unpopular as Harper's becoming routine prorogations?) In any case, the fact that these situation of "legal ws right" are starting to happen so often probably indicates that the legal foundations of our political framework, inherited from the times of our grand grand ancestors with barely any modifications, are coming in conflict with the realities of modern political life and we'll be much better of as a functioning democracy having an open debate on these issues and modify our system in accordance with the outcome. Most importantly, we'll have to decide, and write it in the law without confusion and compromise, who holds the supreme authority, final say on matters political, the body of elected representatives, or the government with the sleigh of unelected, responsible only to it (the government) officials. The answer to this question could very well define the direction in which our democracy is going to evolve.

I think it's more of "the other way around". If I'm not mistaken, both NDP and Bloc indicated that they would be ready to work with Ignatieff. But apparently, he wants it all for himself. Well, he may just not get it, this way. I hope people here won't be duped into voting out of scare anymore than for a face. Iggy will deliver what I want - real meaningful democratic reforms - or I'll simply wait till both him and Harper are out.

Good that we understand it. Good stuff. And we don't really have to use future and conditional tenses here, because that's exactly what happened in the end of last year, if memory still serves you well. And yes, the letter was necessary to prevent the accusations of "conspiracy against democracy" (yes, laugh) and "coup d'etat", ridiculous and insulting intelligence as they are not below the conservative apologists in the highest levels of CPC and on this board. And now, let's recall what happened next. Was the elected House allowed to expresse its will, freely and without obstruction and interference, or was it not? And so, here's another miniquiz for you: was it (the 2008 prorogation) good because done by my favourite PM (souvereign, king, god incarnate); or bad, because as admitted by ourselves not a half page earlier, in a true democracy, the elected majority would express their will freely, without obstruction or interference? Your turn. But the letter was necessary, as explained above. And, the coalition partners did the right thing by behaving openly, transparently and democratically. And, Harper did shut down the elected House with undemocratic ploy. And, he's done it again, now. These are the facts, but of course you can use the words you like to not see them, or pretend they did not happen. Truth is lie, etc.. See Orwell.

We only seem to disagree in the assessment of that particular coalition attempt, myself not being ready to judge its potential, but certainly the majority in the House had every right to come up with such idea, and the government should not have been able to avoid it with a ploy through an undemocratic (albeit constitutional) legality. If that gap in our system is not fixed now, that the problem has been identified, somebody else may (and probably will) be tempted to follow in this PM's steps.

We have already been at this. Why does it have to be played with tricks and ploys (exposing one to accusations such as: "undemocratic" behavior (sic); or "conspiracy" or even "coup d'etat") and not through an open, fair and democratic process? What does it add to the value and standing of our democracy? You're basically saying that following an open, democratic and transparent line of action was a mistake? What is the way to eliminate this problem once and forever, to outplay crooked player at his game, or fix the system that no crooked play is possible or necessary? The accord has been signed for a set time, but of course it does not prove anything with 100% certainty. The real question is, should it really be an unelected official appointed by the government in power, who would pronounce final judgement on matters such as confidence in a proposed government line up? I mean, in a real, functional democracy? I too fully subscribe to that assessment. And here, we maybe would have to split our ways (or maybe, not) depending on the key question of whether it should be sole and unrestricted power of the elected House to decide on the government's mandate to govern. If such powers should be truly and solely vested in the Parliament, without any possibility of interference or obstruction by the government in power, there has to be a working and efficient process of removing government that has failed the test of confidence in the elected House. If such process does not exist, if removing failing government means a national havoc in the form of unwarranted election, it means only one thing, a compromised and less functional democracy.

So naive, are we (yes I believe; thought it's getting stretchy)? With the "conspiracy" whine hitting the fan as it did, imagine the extent of "democratic" indignation if the deal was indeed made covertly and behind the closed doors? Good stuff turning the notions of openness and fairness upside down, btw: the Opposition was wrong in declaring their intentions openly, while Harper was right in using outdated undemocratic ploy to avoid facing the Parliament. As comes straight from Orwell (or Maciavelli; whichever one you prefer). BTW that's exactly what's going to happen to our ailing democracy if we fail to attend to the problem NOW. Nope, note that it's only you who's saying that. The point was that in a true Parliamentary democracy, the will of the elected House must be respected in all cases, and no government should be allowed to stay in power without confidence of the elected House.

I said before, talking is cheap. Let's see if / when it translates into anything real.

Wrong. Harper has, is and will dangle the threat of an election before such motion is even conceived and the first thing he'll do if it's passed would be to ask our unelected GG to dissolve the Parliament. Regardless of whether there is a coalition in waiting or not. As said, the threat of an election as unavoidable consequence of no-confidence motion is the one major obstacle to effective and open expression of democratic will by the elected House. But you know what, you're well on the way to convincing me. If I see Harper returning from this self gifted break and putting in a motion to change Parliamentary procedure requiring GG to consult with the House before dissolving the Parliament, I'll believe you completely. Shish, if that actually happens, I give you a solemn witnessed promise to vote for CPC in the next election (consistent to what I said previously, I'll vote for the party that will propose and execute meaningful democratic reforms, ideological differences aside).