Coalition? Let the People Decide

Coalition governments are constitutionally legitimate, but the ultimate test is public acceptance.

With the prospect of a coalition government emerging as the first major topic of the federal election, constitutional scholar Ned Franks explains why it takes more than constitutional legitimacy to put together a coalition.

What constitutes a legitimate coalition?

A coalition is a legitimate form of government. Whether or not the people in the country accept it is another question. Stephen Harper has made a strong and alarmist case and forgot his own past when he offered the prospect of a government that would be supported by Рif not in a coalition with Рthe NDP and the Bloc Qu̩b̩cois in 2004. And everything he has said since then about coalitions and Parliament and the Bloc denies his actions at that time.

Let’s put it this way: If it is a minority Parliament and the opposition defeats Harper early on – say on the speech from the throne – and if Harper goes and asks the government for a dissolution of Parliament and Michael Ignatieff says no, we’re going to do it on a case-by-case basis, the Governor General would not accept that. He would want a commitment from the opposition parties that they would support a government for at least 18 months. That commitment would need to be made public, written, and signed by the party leaders.

So what happened in 2004? Was it an unsuccessful attempt at a federal-level coalition?

It wasn’t that the proposed Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition was unsuccessful; it was that the opposition in those early months did not defeat Paul Martin’s Liberal government. If I remember correctly, Martin persuaded a couple of members of the opposition to come over to his side before he could be defeated in a non-confidence vote. I believe it was Belinda Stronach, if I remember correctly, and independent MP Chuck Cadman also voted with the Liberals on the budget.

Then where does popular support enter into the equation?

In terms of a coalition, it’s a question of what the Governor General would require from an opposition leader to deny a request from the prime minister. It’s not popular support that the Governor General is concerned with, it is the seats in the House. The Governor General might take popular opinion into account at some other time.

When Michaëlle Jean granted the prorogation in 2008, I believe that she took into account that then Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was very unpopular. He had a support rating of around 18 per cent as a candidate for prime minister, and there has never been a party leader entering the office of prime minister with that sort of support. Harper made that argument to Jean and then the second argument was that he made a commitment to meet the House on a vote of confidence immediately after Parliament was reconvened. I think that’s one time when the GG did take into account the popularity of a potential prime minister.

Coalition governments have worked well abroad. Why are Canadians so averse to the idea? Does the Bloc Québécois complicate matters?

Let me go through some countries with working coalition governments: Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and India. Pretty much every major Commonwealth parliamentary government has a coalition at this time. Almost every government in Europe is a coalition government. They tend to function just fine – better or worse depending on whether you are in on the coalition or left on the outside.

If we ever went to proportional representation in Canada, virtually every government would have to be a coalition of some kind. The Bloc presence can complicate things at some point. It didn’t complicate matters for Harper in 2004; he was very happy to have the support of the Bloc. It simply complicates Harper’s perception of what the Liberals can or cannot do legitimately. But it didn’t cause complications for him back then. If you look at that as a change of heart on Harper’s part, fine. If you look at that as political opportunism or hypocrisy, you have that choice as well.

The example that everyone keeps coming back to is the Ontario provincial coalition in 1985.

What happened in 1985 was that Progressive Conservative Frank Miller had had a majority as premier of Ontario and came back after an election with the most seats but as a minority. He came back, met the House, presented a throne speech, and was defeated on it. He thought he could ask for another election immediately, but he was disabused of that notion. David Peterson, the Liberal leader, took over with a written commitment from Bob Rae of the NDP that he would support the Peterson government. It was written, made public, and promised 18 months of support between those two parties. Together they had a majority.

Ned Franks is an emeritus professor of political science at Queen’s University. He has written or edited 14 books, including The Parliament of Canada, The Canoe and White Water, and Dissent and the State. Franks was founding president of the Canadian Study of Parliament Group.

Photo courtesy of Reuters.