We now see where the supposed "input-output" illogic used to justify Harper's illegitimate prorogation has led us, with Ned Franks now also going all wet on parliamentary supremacy. Parliamentary supremacy and its related conventions are the very basis of our system, going back to Magna Carta & 1215, and are only restrained by those explicit written constitutional limits we have imposed, notably 1867 Constitutional Act & 1982 Constitution Act. There is nothing, but nothing, as recognised by Nicholson, in either of those that can in any way even dream of hinting of suggesting that the Government is not subject to the House's will in this matter, in any way, shape or form. Those who went all wet on legislative legitimacy & supremacy v-à-v the executive last December and choose to criticise Russell & the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars, mocking the "Massey College crowd", have helped to create a climate in which the Government of Canada may apparently feel free to brazenly break the law, and not just any law but the very cornerstone of our system, using Stalinist logic: "How many divisions/forces of coercion does the Opposition have?".
I say Stalinist knowingly, and I always try to weigh my words, because frankly, after all the fuss about China and false comparisons to Canada, there is no other way to describe the justification potentially used by a government which relies on de facto brute force overwhelming the law, in both its narrowest & broadest senses. There is no other way to describe this other than, without exaggeration, the very core of authoritarian-totalitarian logic and self-justification. Were the government indeed to ignore and override the constitutional legal authority of Parliament in this matter, willy nilly, it would have left democracy behind and launched itself into precisely such an authoritarian-totalitarian course: "we will do as we wish because we have the police and the army and the monopoly of all the powers of coercion - might makes right." As critical as I have been of Harper, it honestly never occurred to me that the Government would be willing to assume such an out and out revolutionary-reactionary position. A party mind you, that calls itself "conservative" and purports to maintain some connection to Canada's Tory roots.
At this moment of writing, I cannot yet believe that the Government will indeed proceed down such a fateful path. From undermining parliamentary democracy every day in every way to actually out and out overthrowing it? Those wets who said that the constitutional law profs were wrong, and wrong to criticise the masses for their ignorance, created a circular logic: because many people are "wisely ignorant", they perceive the legitimate workings of parliamentary democracy as illegitimate, and those "wise ignoramuses" being sufficient in number to have conclusive political weight, those workings are therefore illegitimate, and the executive's hitherto illegitimate actions become legitimised, and parliamentary democracy becomes illegitimate, reinforcing the correctness and wisdom of the people's "wise ignorance". And thus this circular reasoning may well soon be boiled down down to and exposed as the simple authoritarianist logic it is: might makes right.
There is a moment that every democracy that has tipped into authoritarianism has known, often, even usually, undervalued at the time, when the executive declared itself no longer subject to the law, in both its narrowest and broadest senses. Last December's Prorogation, since there was an outside arbiter, just barely missed being that moment, despite the disproportion of the PM's position as sole constitutional advisor to the Crown. The Crown could still have chosen to ignore the PM's advice. But in this case, if the Conservative Government places itself above the law, our most fundamental law, the most fundamental law of parliamentary democracies the world over, then that could well prove in retrospect the moment when we passed, for a few months or years at least, from democracy into authoritarianism. A minor, soft, comfortable authoritarianism, with a Potemkin democracy, but authoritarianism none the less.
We see where the wet input-output perversity has led us, to a situation where the public's ignorance is all the justification needed for the overthrow of parliamentary democracy, since the Conservative Government would hope that its effective coup d'état would be beyond the understanding of a good plurality of Canadians, "their" plurality. Therefore, faced with a weak opposition, they would dare the opposition to try to stop their coup through an election, knowing that under our electoral system and given their strong plurality, and given their demonstrable willingness to break electoral law to their advantage, it would be highly improbable they would lose enough seats to lose their plurality. As the outgoing Government, and holding said plurality, they would be invited to form the government. And we're back to square one. If parliament continually orders them to produce documents, the most legal and constitutional act there is, the very basis of Magna Carta and everything since, the two English Revolutions, the Upper & Lower Canadian Rebellions, Lafontaine-Baldwin's democratic revolution, etc., and they continually refuse, daring the opposition to provoke an election they will win given the rules, their breaking of them, and the lumpenpublic plurality behind them, then the institutions of parliamentary democracy, that is to say, democracy, have become null and void. Unless, of course, the Opposition, assuming they still form a majority of members of the House, form a government of some nature.
Given the issues at play here, I mean, we are talking about the very matrix of our system, its deepest, darkest, oldest magic, I strongly urge the Government to follow the example of every government since the Glorious Revolution, and recognise and submit to parliamentary supremacy, ie. democracy. If they defy Parliament, the Opposition must first pressure them by using every means, popular revolt, demonstrations, parliamentary revolt (let the bells ring, occupy the Chamber), everything imaginable. All democrats of good faith, particularly the Fourth Estate, must defend democracy and pressure the government - this slip into authoritarianism affects all citizens profoundly, but none more than journalists. Should the Government continue to defy Parliament, then there will need to be an election, despite all the handicaps on the opposition. They should run a coordinated campaign on this very issue of democracy. One issue, all campaign, should manage to educate a good majority of Canadians of what's at stake, and I assume that the Fourth Estate would be, for reasons of both idealism and self-protection, vigourous in this education. Should the Conservatives win a plurality, which despite all that had been done, would remain the probability, the Opposition must form the Government, whatever its nature. When a pyromaniac is intent on burning down one's house, and in the act, one has to both stop the fire and stop the pyromaniac. Fulfilling only one of these two conditions would ensure the burning of one's house, now or later.
I cannot stress enough the seriousness of the government's possible course that I have just read. I sincerely hope this is unfounded rumour, and if not, the Government comes to its senses and retreats from the path of authoritarianism, not a claim I make lightly. But if not, and I can't believe that this could be, but all the same, if not, then the Conservatives will have declared war on Canadian democracy, no less. If so, then democrats will have to declare war on the Conservatives. Parliament must not bow its knee to the Executive. Canadian democracy is parliamentary democracy and parliamentary democracy is null and void without parliamentary supremacy, a point Walsh, the Law Clerk, made most clear. The Executive, ie. the Government, must submit. If it won't, then it must, MUST, be made to submit. Depending on just how far the Conservatives are ready to go, should they indeed pursue such a dangerous course, which I can't credit, then there may even come a point when the GG or the Queen herself, as guarantor of our institutions, may have to intervene. It is that serious.
First, let's hope the authoritarian path is unfounded speculation and the Government will do as the House requires. Second, if the Government is indeed considering such an awful path, then they must reconsider or be made to reconsider, through every available means. Third, if they won't reconsider, and indeed pursue authoritarianism, then all democrats must rally for democracy and oppose and pressure them in every possible way, forcing them to renounce this course and submit to parliament. Fourth, if that fails, then assuming the Cons will still respect the outward forms, an election must be forced, with only one issue, democracy versus authoritarianism. The fundamental nature of the question is such that the Opposition must coordinate its efforts in the most useful way, given our system - this argues against single opposition candidates in ridings, given 2nd preferences of incoherent electorate, but in favour of coordinated campaign strategy, tactics & rhetoric. Fifth, should the election, as is probable given our current broken system, return the Conservatives with a minority plurality, the Opposition must use its majority to form the government, however that's done and in whatever form, and reaffirm parliamentary supremacy, ie. reestablish parliamentary democracy, that is to say, democracy.
I have only recently defended the Cons from what I considered excessive comparisons to one totalitarianism. I cannot credit that they have indeed become such, or are even considering following that path. It would be the most perverse betrayal of Canadian conservatism. From Loyalists to this? Surely not. If any are so misguided as to even consider such a danger, I urge them to reflect well on the traditions of Canadian conservatism and reconsider. But in the still unlikely case, to me, at least, that they indeed pursue an authoritarian logic, they would be declaring war on Canadian democracy, and all democrats would be obliged to make war against them. I urge them not to. But should they, democrats must be as coherent and harsh in response as needed to defend Canadian democracy. Some, like the FLQ, attack democracy from without and are treated accordingly. Should the Cons follow the path of authoritarianism, they would be destroying democracy from within, and would need to be dealt with as harshly. Don't do it Cons, it would be a disaster for everyone and your names would live in infamy. Do the right, normal & established thing, respect our most basic law, and submit to Parliament. Since the advent of responsible government in 1848, no self-described conservative government has ever done otherwise.
