"Plain as the nose on a man's face."

Or is it?  Avid readers (sic) of Tilting at Windmills will know that the blog found its genesis mostly in the post-2008-election discussions about minorities, coalitions and such. To be more precise: minority governments, coalition governments, and such. There is lots and lots of evidence to this effect if anyone has the stamina to peruse the archives (I suggest copious quantities of caffeine prior to the attempt).


Liberal friend Rob Silver tweeted yesterday something to the effect that the word "coalition" has come (rather quickly, I add) to have at least 6 different meanings. Somehow, over the past little while, the word (and concept of) "coalition" in the political context has become synonymous with "collaboration", "merger", "cooperation", "discussion", "arrangements", and "accords", to name a few (I'm kind of chuffed that I actually came up with six!).

This morning I was tagged in an earnest Facebook note by another Liberal friend, whom I am sure, means the best and cares deeply about his party, its electoral prospects, its Leader and so on, basically the whole nine yards, but was riddled with confusion about just what people are, and likely should, be discussing.  And then I read a piece by David Mader (Tory alert!) in The Mark, which I have come to enjoy, largely because the pieces are just out there and no one, other than the commenters editorializes much.  On the other hand they don't correct the record either.

Just look at what Mader says in the first paragraph: 

The partisan reaction to whispers of a Liberal-NDP coalition, or even a formal merger, has been predictably predictable. Hopes of such an arrangement revived when the British Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties recently entered into a formal coalition, and Liberal MP Bob Rae – himself a former NDP premier of Ontario – further fanned the flames with his reminiscences of the 1985 Liberal-NDP coalition in that province. When the president of the Young Liberals of Canada added his voice to those calling for a proper coalition, pointing to a poll that suggested such a coalition would be at least competitive with the Harper Tories, an air of momentum seemed to develop.

 So he links "whispers" of a coalition (keep in mind my bolded word/clarification, government) to a "merger", incorrectly calls the Ontario Liberal/NDP accord of 1985 a coalition, and states that YLC President Sam Lavoie called for a "proper coalition". Frankly, Lavoie did no such thing.  Lavoie called for discussions on collaboration and cooperation in a pre-electoral context, hinting, but never stating that those could/might eventually to some sort of merger and most certainly not a coalition government.

For my part, I've become a tad (not a lot, but a tad) concerned that any little interventions I may have made are being viewed in this state of collective confusion.  So allow me to, er, um, clarify.

I would like my party to discuss and recognize the democratic nature of the possibility of a coalition government, in Canada, given our Westminster-styled parliamentary democracy.  I would like recognition that given an agreed upon set of circumstances that such an outcome - after an election - would be a legitimate consideration. (Aside -  I am not personally interested in pursuing other pre-electoral collaborative arrangements, unless I see that we have drifted so far from Liberal principles that a new movement might be palatable, but I surely see the need for my Party to not be afraid to sit in a room and discuss it).

I'm tired of this concept being demonized by PM Harper and his hoards, and sorry to say, by our Leader as well.  I do not think that his categorical statements reflect the nature of our democracy very well.  In constantly referring to "the" coalition, which I take to mean the attempt in 2008 by Messrs Dion and Layton, as opposed to "a potential coalition government", the Party falls into the same trap as M. Dion did back then.

It's rather obvious that a coalition government can only be entered into after an election given that pollsters aside, no one really has a crystal ball that can confirm what the final outcome will be.  I am in the camp that says there should be some conditions to legitimize the option should it come to that.  For me, a most important condition includes the fact that the possibility should be contemplated by the electorate, so that it can take it into consideration as it deliberates about its reasons for voting the way it does.  This is done in most European elections (where I might add the longevity, therefore stability of most governments is in excess of three years regardless of majority, minority or coalition status) and was most recently witnessed in the general elections in Germany and the UK.

This, for me, and for many academics and practitioners is the main reason I view the Dion/Layton attempt as, how to put this politely: not terribly legitimate.  That's because, during the 2008 election, M. Dion (and I believe Mr. Layton too - I'm just too lazy to search out a reference) categorically ruled out considering it.  In fact he used identical wording to current Leader Michael Ignatieff, just days ago: "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal Government. We aren't interested in coalitions."

I don't think this is in keeping with democratic principles and I don't think it is particularly wise, and, I do not think that it serves Canadians very well. 

"When thou art at Rome, do as they do at Rome."

Susan Riley, in yesterday's Citizen, more than adequately expresses Quixotique's crushed hopes of politics being done differently in this country, in this party, at this time.

"The dated, top-down, paternalistic management style embraced by our major parties -- an approach long-since abandoned by most intelligent organizations -- would appear to be under no immediate threat. .

Challenging the rigid rituals of politics-as-usual would embellish, rather than threaten, Ignatieff's image. Allowing MPs more flexibility on future votes, for instance, would be a true test of leadership -- of the listening and diplomatic skills Ignatieff possesses in abundance. Every case is different; every crisis has a context. ...

But Ignatieff will likely be a disappointment for anyone looking for a new kind of politics. He respects tradition. He plays by the old rules. He claims, lamely, that his job as opposition leader is only to oppose, not propose. ..."

Others see more promise in ILMI's tentative step forward to a more democratic and representative outlook.

Editorialists at the Gazette, find ILMI's actions on the budget vote in the best of Burkean Liberal traditions with respect to the relationship and the balance required between representatives and the respresented, arguing that a relaxation of party discipline, if for the right reasons can improve our political system, if done wisely.

"Canadians would be best served, we believe, if elected leaders broke ranks with their parties somewhat more often, not in knee-jerk regional (or linguistic) solidarity but in thoughtful expression of individual visions of society. Few matters, after all, really need to be questions of confidence for governments.

True, more liberty for caucus members would surely create a small, annoying class of professional dissenters. But in the long run, individual lawmakers would be more useful if they were not shackled so tightly by party discipline."

Writing in the Guelph Mercury, William Christian argues that ILMI may be forced into this new (for politics in general and in general in Canada) posture precisely because of his own beliefs about democracy and concepts of leadership. Using a phrase favoured by ILMI's political philosopher uncle, George Grant: "Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling", Christian muses that in the instance of the NL 6, ILMI chose to be led, by members of the Liberal caucus (not Ignatieff-Liberals), pointing out (as has Quixotique, btw) that "They knew why they got elected. It wasn't because of the Liberal party and it certainly wasn't because of him."

Which brings Quixotque back to earlier musings about ILMI and his position in the Party and how he may find himself in a minority leadership situation within it, what that means to his democratic outlook, and whether if he agrees with that democratic outlook, it extends, in a principled way, to his position on the proposed coalition. It seems to me that if it did, while casting aside the concept of a coalition government as a viable political option at the time, he could have embraced the concept of a coalition opposition.


One of the arguments raised against the proposed coalition government was that its prospect was not contemplated by the public. Leaving aside the debate about that, no one could argue nonetheless that the concept is not in front of them now and an intent on the table. There seems to me no reason why, having entered into a agreement, the opposition parties could not continue this agreement in the context of their collective role as an opposition.


In so thinking, ILMI might have offered the NDP a real role in crafting substantive amendments to the budget on areas where they agreed it was woefully inadequate and where they could have improved the budget to better meet ILMI's conditions for acceptability; EI and green infrastructure come to mind. (Only the Official Opposition can move an amendment to the budget and the third party may offer sub-amendments, but the NDP had no legislative mechanism on its own to amend on first reading.) PMSH would have been hard pressed to oppose such an amendment, knowing that it's acceptance would mean at least two of the three opposition parties would subsequently support the budget and there would be greater consensus amongst parliaments and the electorate alike.

That would have been doing politics boldly and differently. Ah, but Rome wasn't built in a day.