Our Prime Minister is no dummy. He is cerebral and a proficient practitioner of the dark political arts.

Harper will also say or do many things to maintain his tenuous hold on power. Of course, Harper is neither the first nor will he be the last to pander, obfuscate, mislead and divide in a bid to stay in office. But one of his more pernicious actions is to exploit Canadians’ ignorance of how our parliament works.

A coalition government is legitimate and Harper knows this. Indeed, in 2004 when the Conservatives were in Opposition, they sent a letter, co-signed by the “socialists” (NDP) and the “separatists” (BQ), to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson stating: “We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.”

The 2010 Harper should give the 2004 Harper a call.

The PM is in the UK meeting with the new Prime Minister, David Cameron. As you know, Cameron’s Conservatives formed a coalition with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats. This coalition of parties with competing ideologies has piqued the interest of Canada’s centre and left parties and coalition talk between the NDP and the Liberals, supported by the Bloc, is once again all the rage. And it has Harper spooked.

Preaching from the British Prime Minister’s residence, Harper emphatically stated: “The verdict of public opinion was pretty clear. Losers don’t get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments.”

Ignoring the fact that Harper didn’t win with a majority, thus the verdict of public opinion wasn’t clear (under first-past-the-post, many majorities are “false” majorities. Until we have a system such as proportional representation, the verdict of public opinion will always be muddied), Harper’s statement is designed to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of Canadians.

Cameron didn’t get first dibs on forming a coalition and, unlike Harper claims, did not “win” the election. Labour leader Gordon Brown could have hammered something out with the Lib Dems, would have needed the support from a few other parties who had a handful of MPs elected, and stayed on as PM. But Clegg and Cameron were able to come to an agreement and didn’t need the support of other parties such as the Democratic Unionist Party (8 seats) or the Scottish National Party (6 seats). I’m aware that what transpired was more complex and nuanced than this, but Harper purposely dismisses how the coalition was actually achieved.

Coalitions, which have been formed in legislatures across Canada, are critical to our Westminster system. I’ve quoted this illuminating passage from Eugene Forsey’s “How Canadians Govern Themselves” frequently, but here it is again: “If a cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, the cabinet must either resign (the Governor General will then ask the leader of the Opposition to form a new cabinet) or ask for a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election.”

The Conservatives could, especially in a minority position, lose confidence of the House and the NDP and Liberals could form a coalition. Harper knows this and sees it as an ever-looming threat. 

But by misleading Canadians, by questioning the legitimacy of a coalition government, Harper hopes to staunch any notions of a coalition by having it savaged in the court of public opinion.

Canadians need to be reminded of what Harper clearly, and quite rightly, understood in 2004.

Eric Mang

Eric Mang

Eric Mang served as a political aide in the Harris government in Ontario and the Campbell government in British Columbia. His politics have since shifted left. He works full-time in health policy, part-time...