Coalitions: Pro- (Parliamentary) Democracy = Pro-Democracy by Parliamentarians!

It is exceedingly strange to observe virtually the entire Canadian commentariat repeatedly bemoan the excessive presidentialist distortions of our political system, and call for a return to our parliamentary democracy's roots, empowering MPs, and their concurrent calls for more politics of the real, and less superficiality, and then, almost in the same breath, accept presidentalist assumptions in their evaluation of politics. Their commentary on coalitions has been the most incoherent in this regard, from December 2008 onwards. We do not elect Prime Ministers, we elect MPs, correct? No-one denies the importance of party leaders in the electorate's decision-making, but at the end of the day, our democracy is all about 308 separate elections. The MPs we elect, however flawed our electoral system, are the repository of all democratic legitimacy. They gather in the House of the Commoners, usually GROUPING themselves into parties that represent their broad political philosophy, the better to achieve their goals, whatever compromises are made within those GROUPINGS, "internally, behind closed doors", as some might say.

After an election, to ensure basically functional governance, the State, embodied in the Crown and in her Governor General, needs a government that can BEST command the CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE for the forseeable future. How best to ensure that a majority of MPs will support the government on matters of confidence? Obviously, as convention dictates, the largest parliamentary GROUPING is usually favoured by the Crown.

In the hypothesis that, for example's sake, MPs of one party, the outgoing government perhaps, win a plurality of seats, but discover that the parties with the 2nd and, say, 4th most seats, have formed A LARGER PARLIAMENTARY GROUPING, MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC WILL, then by convention, the PM would ask the Crown to accept his resignation as her principal advisor, and that of his government, and advise her, in his last act as PM, to invite the leader of this grouping to become her first advisor, her Prime Minister, and his grouping to fill the positions of government, as this grouping, being the largest, would seem to have the best chance of maintaining the confidence of the House.

It is possible, I suppose, in this hypothesis, that the outgoing Prime Minister and his party, though representing fewer Canadians and comprising fewer MPs than another parliamentary grouping, might be so vile as to attempt to ignore the constitution, and remain in government. No matter. Whatever hypothetical machinations might be attempted, one would expect the Crown to dismiss her outgoing Prime Minister and his government, were they tardy in their duty to resign, and call on the largest grouping to form the government. Should the Crown, upon the advice of her outgoing Prime Minister, wish to give the incumbent government the chance to test their support in the House, the Throne Speech would rapidly provide the first such occasion. Should the Throne Speech be defeated, and there be a larger parliamentary grouping with a greater chance of maintaining the confidence of the House, the Crown would give them the opportunity of forming the government. After all, Canadians having just elected 308 MPs, these MPs representing the individual wills of Canadians, made collective, as best understood through our electoral system, one would hope that they might find a way to provide peace, order and good government for some period, without plunging us into another election, into constant elections.

So it is that there is nothing remarkable about such a hypothesis. The largest parliamentary grouping inevitably forms the government, whether the Conservatives in 1979 or in 1984, the Liberals in 1968 or in 1972. Through the centuries, the formation of such groupings has always been the affair of negotiation and compromise, some more public, much private, some earlier, some later.

It has indeed been entertaining, since 2004, to observe the rediscovery of parliamentary democracy, of parliament's and parliamentarians' powers. One of the most piquant illustrations of unreflective doublethink is that of commentators still coming to terms with our system, as their political education seems to have been woefully betrayed by our historically deficient education systems. Given the American influence that seems to afflict many of them, might I suggest they think of the American House of Representatives, and the Speaker of the House, currently Nancy Pelosi, as the closest thing to a Prime Minister, were the Americans to magically abandon their Presidential system overnight (I'm ignoring the different Senates on purpose, to keep things simple). The American Speaker, like our PM, maintains her position because more Representatives support her and her party than any other. As soon as a larger grouping was formed, however loose, then their leader would become Speaker. So it is with the PM and the House of Commons.

In conclusion, one cannot declare oneself an enthusiastic democrat, a partisan of strengthened parliaments, more representative of the heterogeneous desires of Canadians, and then turn around and say it is wrong or illegitimate for parliamentarians and parliaments to exercise their rights and responsibilities in the name of the Canadians who participated in those 308 elections, and of all Canadians. One is either a democrat or one is not. And in the Canadian system, that means MPs, and Parliament. They decide who is the government, for how long, under what conditions and following what plans. If you are a democrat, you have to support the largest parliamentary grouping's right to form the government.