I find it difficult to abide cowardice, a characteristic that we all share to one degree or another. I hate it when on occasion it appears in myself and in others.
I can’t think of a more debilitating and demeaning condition than having to cower in the face of a perceived threat, grasping at the straws of avoidance rather than confronting the issue(s) directly, win or lose.
We all understand the motive behind “Those who run away, live to fight another day.” There may be virtue in that strategy under certain conditions but certainly not when it comes to the Prime Minister of our country.
Stephen Harper would rather engage in semantics and hide behind a procedural loophole than confront prickly questions such as the alleged mistreatment of prisoners of war at the hands of our military in Afghanistan.
Apparently not the stuff of national and international leadership.
Instead, he closed Parliament (with pay), freeing him up to eagerly join the ‘behind the scenes’ circle-jerk with the Olympic corporate weenies, politicos and other ‘elite’ during the $6 billion Vancouver winter Olympics.
The infamous sentiment “Let them eat cake” has never resonated as loudly as it does now. Harper and his followers will party and schmooze during an Olympics that has spawned an over the top, draconian security sweep along with intrusive violations of privacy and civil rights for some citizens while the business of delivering what Canadians hired him to do goes unfulfilled and unfinished.
Here’s some information I’ve excerpted from an authority on prorogation.
Prorogation Questions and Answers
1. What is prorogation?
Prorogation is the formal ending of a session of Parliament. The Prime Minister normally asks the Governor General to prorogue Parliament once a session’s business is finished. A date is also set for it to re-open, with a new Speech from the Throne laying out the government’s intentions for the new session. Upon prorogation, any pending legislation dies on the order paper, and all parliamentary committees stop work (to be reconstituted, often with membership changes, at the start of the new session.) Dissolution, on the other hand, actually dissolves the House of Commons and leads to a general election.
2. Is prorogation legitimate?
Normally, yes. Prorogation is usually a routine procedure that takes place when both the House of Commons and the Senate have completed the main business of the session as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. The life of each Parliament – that is, the time between general elections, usually three or four years – normally comprises several sessions, so there are usually several prorogations, often during the summer recess. (At first the session may simply be adjourned, so that Parliament can be readily reconvened if some great new issue or emergency develops while it is not sitting.) In any case, Parliament is prorogued before a new Throne Speech starts a new session.
3. When is prorogation not acceptable?
It is unacceptable for a Prime Minister to seek to have Parliament prorogued before both Houses have completed the bulk of the session’s business. Until December 2008, such a request mid-session was practically unheard-of, as governments generally respected Parliament’s right to conduct its business without the threat of being shut down. A crucial part of that business in the House of Commons is the question of confidence: for a government to stay in office it must have the continuing support of a majority of elected MPs. For a Prime Minister to seek prorogation (or dissolution) in order to forestall a vote of non-confidence is a flagrant abuse of process which attacks the very foundation of representative parliamentary democracy.
4. Does the Governor General have the power to refuse to prorogue?
Yes, but only in very exceptional circumstances, when constitutional priinciples themselves are at stake. The Governor General does not make political decisions about parties or policies; her duty is to uphold the constitution by ensuring that the people’s elected Parliament is allowed to make those decisions. If it is unclear whether the government requesting prorogation (or dissolution) has the confidence of the House of Commons, the Crown has the “reserve power” to refuse that advice and insist that Parliament be given the freedom to decide who will govern.
Like
The title of this piece begs the question of who “we” re. The answer, John, is hidden in your fourth point: “we” do not occupy any space at all in the governance of what “we” believe to be a democracy. “We” have remained silent for decades, acting as spectators as the role of the prime minister gradually evolved into that of a de facto president while parliament declined to a de facto advisory council. The last two prorogations have only advanced that process.
Far too many Canadians pray for leadership to deliver us from whatever ails the nation today. The health of a democracy, however, is not reliant on the quality of political leaders, it is wholly dependent on the determination of citizens to take responsibility for their own governance.
Canadians have a long way to go in this regard, and we cannot rely on the courts to save our democratic bacon as nothing done by Mr. Harper (so far) would be ruled by our Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. If you read the sections of the constitution that deal with the allocation of power, you will not find a single reference to “citizens.”
Closer to home, if you study the Court of Appeal decision in Whitehorse (City) vs. Darragh, you will discover that even when the Legislature says that citizens have the power to petition their municipal council to submit “any” bylaw to a referendum, the court ruled otherwise and thus established that the Legislature, presumably the democratically elected body politic with the constitutional power and responsibility to pass laws, was wrong.
That decision, like so many other “incidents” in Canadian governance, was accepted and swallowed with barely a murmur by Canadians, too many of whom do not seem to know the difference between a vassal and a citizen.
I think part of the problem is that we don’t use the collective “we” often enough. It’s always “the government”, “they” did this and “they” did that.
Like you say, too often we behave like vassals looking up to the turrets of the distant castle seeking salvation, direction and charity.
A first step might be to at least symbolically take possession of government by always referring to it as “OUR” government rather than a detached entity over which we have no control.
Obviously the health of a democracy is only as good as the level of engagement by the citizens.
The reality is, as long as we have our 3 square meals per day, a roof over our heads and plenty of amusements for pleasurable distraction why would anyone want to get their hands dirty?
Right you are. Remember Louis XIV proclaming “L’etat c’est moi” – well, the democratic equivalent should be “L’etat c’est nous” and not “l’etat c’est eux.” As long as we take the view that “the government” is “those guys,” “those guys” will do as they please.
I’ve just started in on Archie Brown’s “The Rise & Fall of Communism” and some aspects of the early history of communism in Russia make you think. For example, this is a statement written by Trotsky in 1904:
“Lenin’s methods lead to this: the party organization first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Contral Committee …”
Kinda makes you think, doesn’t it?
(See http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/06/rise-fall-communism-archie-brown)