IN PRAISE OF COALITIONS

What Canada needs is a reasonable and effective coalition government. We need a government where people can work together, to solve the problems and build on the strengths of our nation.

Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen, because of the personalities involved.

Coalitions are normal in many countries -- Israel, India, Germany, France, and Italy, to name a few. In Britain, right after World War 1, Prime Minister David Lloyd George led a coalition government from 1918 to 1922. Britain again had a coalition government (including Conservatives, Labour and, Liberals) from 1935 to 1945 (there was no election during World War 2). That coalition was led first by Neville Chamberlain, then by Winston Churchill. Canada even had an elected coalition government -- the “Union Government” of Prime Minister Robert Borden, from 1917 to 1920.

There is nothing new, strange, or illegal about coalition governments. They have been, and can be, very effective.

Coalitions represent a wide range of thought, much like the thinking of Canadian people. That’s a good thing: we all don’t always think alike agree on everything. If we did, life would be pretty boring. And there would be no chance for change. However, we do think differently; we see situations differently; we see varying opportunities for the future. I think this diversity of thought is good.

As I have written before, much of Canada was built by people from very different backgrounds working together to solve common problems. They knew that if they didn’t work together, they wouldn’t survive, individually or collectively. That reality hasn’t changed.

On the other hand, single-party majority government’s don’t have the same sensitivity to the wide variety of thinking among Canadians voters.

Of course, we almost had a second coalition government in Canada last December, involving the Liberals and New Democrats, with the tacit support of the Bloc Québecois. That would have been a bit different, in that coalitions are usually formed at the request of the ruling Prime Minister. But Stephen Harper recognized the problem, and ran like a dog with his tail between his legs -- to the Governor General. It apparently took a fair amount of convincing, but Michael Jean bailed him out.

But that tells us why we are not likely to have a coalition government.

We have adult men and women in our Parliament who are content to play “king of the hill” like little boys and girls. Stephen Harper is lusting after a majority government, so he can enforce radical change on Canada -- until the country no longer resembles what it has been (to paraphrase one of his more “interesting” statements). We have Michael Ignatieff, brighter and more experienced than Harper, but less politically seasoned, lusting after the same job. We have Jack Layton dreaming of more power. So these personal ambitions prevent the collaborative, community-building approach that our country needs at a difficult and challenging time. Which is not at all helpful.

Canadians-- young and older, rural and urban -- need something better than that, and deserve something better.

(This was originally written for The Western Producer, a Canadian newspaper, and published October 8, 2009. It speaks of a number of British parallels.)
√