Whisper
January 16th, 2010, 04:59 PM
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.montrealgazette.com/news/Only+Canada+Harper+prorogation+Canadian+thing/2448571/2405321.bin?size=620x400
Take a look around the world. Go searching for the last time a Westminster-style parliament was shut down to free its leaders from unwanted censure or scrutiny — and you'll end right back in Canada, where you started.
It turns out, no other English-speaking nation with a system of government like ours — not Britain, Australia or New Zealand — has ever had its parliament prorogued in modern times, so that its ruling party could avoid an investigation, or a vote of confidence, by other elected legislators.
Only three times has this happened, all in Canada — first in 1873, when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the governor general to prorogue Parliament, in order to halt a House of Commons probe into the Pacific Scandal. Lord Dufferin gave in to the demand, but when Parliament reconvened Macdonald was forced to resign.
No prime minister dared use prorogation to such effect again, until Stephen Harper convinced Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to suspend Parliament in 2008, so the Conservatives could evade a confidence vote.
About 12 months later, he did it again. Harper claims he shut down Parliament to "recalibrate" his government, but his critics say he did so to escape the rising pressure of the Afghan-detainee affair and its investigation by a House of Commons committee.
"The Canadian Parliament is more dysfunctional than any of the other Westminster parliaments . . . in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and Scotland," says Robert Hazell, the director of the prestigious Constitution Unit at the University College of London. "No other parliament has been prorogued in recent times to rescue the government from a political difficulty."
Governments in Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand prorogue parliament all the time — usually in advance of an election, or because their legislative agenda has been finished, or to allow the Queen to reopen parliament during a royal visit.
In 1968, the Australian Parliament was prorogued when the country's prime minister, Harold Holt, disappeared while swimming at sea.
But rarely, says Ned Franks, a parliamentary historian at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., has the leader of a Westminster democracy ever suspended the work of the country's legislature in such a brazen, self-interested manner as is now the case in Canada.
"Stephen Harper is entering into uncharted territory," says Franks. "The question people have to ask is, 'Is Harper going to resort to this behaviour every time he doesn't want to face up to Parliament? Have we got someone here who just runs away every time he gets into trouble?'"
In Britain, no prime minister would dare prorogue the House of Commons for purely political reasons, says Franks. British parliamentary sessions last a full year, and are routinely prorogued each November, according to tradition and schedule. A new yearlong session then begins within a week.
British prime ministers still wield enormous executive power over the government. But they don't control Parliament, or even their party caucuses, the way Canadian leaders do. That's partly due to the long history of Parliament in Britain and the reluctance of politicians to toy with its deep traditions.
But it's also because with 646 MPs compared to 308 in the Canadian House of Commons, it is more difficult for British leaders to control their backbenchers, most of whom know they will never join the cabinet. Instead, British backbenchers seek influence through parliamentary committees, which tend to be stronger, less partisan and more independent than in Canada.
Unlike in Canada, British MPs can also remove their party leaders from office, as Margaret Thatcher discovered in 1990 — all of which limits the power of British leaders and elevates the role and purpose of Parliament.
The Australian Parliament is also stronger than Canada's, and Australian prime ministers are unlikely to use prorogation for self-serving purposes.
"Prorogation is a big deal in Australia, and the prime minister would certainly pay a price in asking for it for political reasons," says Paul Thomas, a specialist in Australian politics at the University of Manitoba.
"Australia's elected senate — where even government party members disagree with their prime minister — is a serious force to be reckoned with, and acts as a check of executive power, even when the government enjoys a majority there.
"The Senate has developed an institutional reputation for not capitulating to government pressure. It stands up for its rights," says Thomas.
"Members of Parliament in Australia also have somewhat more latitude than MPs in Canada. There are members from the peripheries of Australia, from the state of Western Australia for example, with strong local followings. It's not unusual for them to get up and blast their own government on local issues, and get away with it."
Legislatures elsewhere also experience far less turnover during elections, which means their members are more experienced than those in Canada.
"In the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, it is possible to plan for a lifetime career in the Legislature. In Canada it is not," writes Tom Axworthy, the veteran Canadian political observer, in his 2008 study of Parliament, Everything Old is New Again.
Axworthy says that since the Second World War, more than 80 per cent of incumbent U.S. senators and congressmen have succeeded in their bids for re-election. In Britain and Australia, one-half to two-thirds of lower house seats are safely held by incumbents.
Meanwhile in Canadian elections from 1968 to 1993, the average turnover rate was 45 per cent, including a 66 per cent turnover rate of MPs in 1993.
The short-term nature of most MPs' careers in Canada — and their poor, institutional understanding of the House of Commons — allows powerful party leaders to exert more control over backbenchers, partly because so many MPs lack the security of safe, local ridings. The result is a weaker Parliament.
In spite of all these differences, fears of Parliament's decline, and worries about the rising and unchecked power of prime ministers, are also alive in other western democracies.
Former prime ministers of Australia, committees of the U.K. House of Commons, and U.S. congressional experts have all in recent years issued reports warning of the breakdown of legislative power in their countries.
"Australians are almost as disillusioned about the state of their politics as Canadians are," says Thomas. "People in Australia also make the charge that their executive is too powerful."
Thomas also believes Canada deserves — more so than its Westminster cousins around the world — a powerful prime minister, unencumbered by too many checks and balances, partly as a counterweight to the provinces.
"We have strong provincial governments in Canada. We also have a strong Charter of Rights, and both place limits on what the federal government can do. Because of our regional differences, this is a hard country to govern, and we might want a strong prime minister to control otherwise unruly caucuses and cabinets, and offer strong leadership to the country."
But as Ned Franks points out, the strength of the federal government — and the prime minister's own authority — must flow through Parliament. If Parliament is weak, and if the prime minister ignores its members and tries to rule without their consent, then his legal right to govern evaporates.
In a Westminster system, this is Parliament's core democratic function — to legitimize executive power.
King Charles I learned this lesson the hard way more than 300 years ago, by trying to govern without the English Parliament's consent. When he finally dismissed it, political opponents responded by cutting off his head.
"By shutting down Parliament all by himself, Harper is acting in muchthe same fashion," says Franks. "We should call him King Stephen the First of Canada, for that, in effect, is the way he is behaving."
Source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Only+Canada+Harper+prorogation+Canadian+thing/2448571/story.html
Take a look around the world. Go searching for the last time a Westminster-style parliament was shut down to free its leaders from unwanted censure or scrutiny — and you'll end right back in Canada, where you started.
It turns out, no other English-speaking nation with a system of government like ours — not Britain, Australia or New Zealand — has ever had its parliament prorogued in modern times, so that its ruling party could avoid an investigation, or a vote of confidence, by other elected legislators.
Only three times has this happened, all in Canada — first in 1873, when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the governor general to prorogue Parliament, in order to halt a House of Commons probe into the Pacific Scandal. Lord Dufferin gave in to the demand, but when Parliament reconvened Macdonald was forced to resign.
No prime minister dared use prorogation to such effect again, until Stephen Harper convinced Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to suspend Parliament in 2008, so the Conservatives could evade a confidence vote.
About 12 months later, he did it again. Harper claims he shut down Parliament to "recalibrate" his government, but his critics say he did so to escape the rising pressure of the Afghan-detainee affair and its investigation by a House of Commons committee.
"The Canadian Parliament is more dysfunctional than any of the other Westminster parliaments . . . in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and Scotland," says Robert Hazell, the director of the prestigious Constitution Unit at the University College of London. "No other parliament has been prorogued in recent times to rescue the government from a political difficulty."
Governments in Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand prorogue parliament all the time — usually in advance of an election, or because their legislative agenda has been finished, or to allow the Queen to reopen parliament during a royal visit.
In 1968, the Australian Parliament was prorogued when the country's prime minister, Harold Holt, disappeared while swimming at sea.
But rarely, says Ned Franks, a parliamentary historian at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., has the leader of a Westminster democracy ever suspended the work of the country's legislature in such a brazen, self-interested manner as is now the case in Canada.
"Stephen Harper is entering into uncharted territory," says Franks. "The question people have to ask is, 'Is Harper going to resort to this behaviour every time he doesn't want to face up to Parliament? Have we got someone here who just runs away every time he gets into trouble?'"
In Britain, no prime minister would dare prorogue the House of Commons for purely political reasons, says Franks. British parliamentary sessions last a full year, and are routinely prorogued each November, according to tradition and schedule. A new yearlong session then begins within a week.
British prime ministers still wield enormous executive power over the government. But they don't control Parliament, or even their party caucuses, the way Canadian leaders do. That's partly due to the long history of Parliament in Britain and the reluctance of politicians to toy with its deep traditions.
But it's also because with 646 MPs compared to 308 in the Canadian House of Commons, it is more difficult for British leaders to control their backbenchers, most of whom know they will never join the cabinet. Instead, British backbenchers seek influence through parliamentary committees, which tend to be stronger, less partisan and more independent than in Canada.
Unlike in Canada, British MPs can also remove their party leaders from office, as Margaret Thatcher discovered in 1990 — all of which limits the power of British leaders and elevates the role and purpose of Parliament.
The Australian Parliament is also stronger than Canada's, and Australian prime ministers are unlikely to use prorogation for self-serving purposes.
"Prorogation is a big deal in Australia, and the prime minister would certainly pay a price in asking for it for political reasons," says Paul Thomas, a specialist in Australian politics at the University of Manitoba.
"Australia's elected senate — where even government party members disagree with their prime minister — is a serious force to be reckoned with, and acts as a check of executive power, even when the government enjoys a majority there.
"The Senate has developed an institutional reputation for not capitulating to government pressure. It stands up for its rights," says Thomas.
"Members of Parliament in Australia also have somewhat more latitude than MPs in Canada. There are members from the peripheries of Australia, from the state of Western Australia for example, with strong local followings. It's not unusual for them to get up and blast their own government on local issues, and get away with it."
Legislatures elsewhere also experience far less turnover during elections, which means their members are more experienced than those in Canada.
"In the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, it is possible to plan for a lifetime career in the Legislature. In Canada it is not," writes Tom Axworthy, the veteran Canadian political observer, in his 2008 study of Parliament, Everything Old is New Again.
Axworthy says that since the Second World War, more than 80 per cent of incumbent U.S. senators and congressmen have succeeded in their bids for re-election. In Britain and Australia, one-half to two-thirds of lower house seats are safely held by incumbents.
Meanwhile in Canadian elections from 1968 to 1993, the average turnover rate was 45 per cent, including a 66 per cent turnover rate of MPs in 1993.
The short-term nature of most MPs' careers in Canada — and their poor, institutional understanding of the House of Commons — allows powerful party leaders to exert more control over backbenchers, partly because so many MPs lack the security of safe, local ridings. The result is a weaker Parliament.
In spite of all these differences, fears of Parliament's decline, and worries about the rising and unchecked power of prime ministers, are also alive in other western democracies.
Former prime ministers of Australia, committees of the U.K. House of Commons, and U.S. congressional experts have all in recent years issued reports warning of the breakdown of legislative power in their countries.
"Australians are almost as disillusioned about the state of their politics as Canadians are," says Thomas. "People in Australia also make the charge that their executive is too powerful."
Thomas also believes Canada deserves — more so than its Westminster cousins around the world — a powerful prime minister, unencumbered by too many checks and balances, partly as a counterweight to the provinces.
"We have strong provincial governments in Canada. We also have a strong Charter of Rights, and both place limits on what the federal government can do. Because of our regional differences, this is a hard country to govern, and we might want a strong prime minister to control otherwise unruly caucuses and cabinets, and offer strong leadership to the country."
But as Ned Franks points out, the strength of the federal government — and the prime minister's own authority — must flow through Parliament. If Parliament is weak, and if the prime minister ignores its members and tries to rule without their consent, then his legal right to govern evaporates.
In a Westminster system, this is Parliament's core democratic function — to legitimize executive power.
King Charles I learned this lesson the hard way more than 300 years ago, by trying to govern without the English Parliament's consent. When he finally dismissed it, political opponents responded by cutting off his head.
"By shutting down Parliament all by himself, Harper is acting in muchthe same fashion," says Franks. "We should call him King Stephen the First of Canada, for that, in effect, is the way he is behaving."
Source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Only+Canada+Harper+prorogation+Canadian+thing/2448571/story.html