kevin p. siu

[Political opinion below. Reader beware?]

$300 million later, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have little to show for it but a meagre 1% increase in popularity and a dozen more seats in Parliament. While he claims to have gained a mandate to govern with his new ’strong minority’, little has changed in Ottawa. The Liberals will still cower in big votes for some time while they recover and regroup; the NDP’s will continue to make big noises and do little; and the Bloc will continue to dawdle around as always.

The major newspapers are all calling for Dion’s head, justifiably so, but all agree that Harper will keep his job. The fact is, Harper suffered a huge blow yesterday when he failed to win a majority government, even with the weakest Liberal opposition in more than a century. A couple years from now, when there will undoubtedly be another election after the Liberals regroup and finally grow some backbone, voters will once again show their lack of confidence in this compromise of a Prime Minister. When that time comes, it’s likely that Harper will be defeated, if he’s still the Prime Minister by then. Voters will be tired of listening to his attacks and cynicism, and give him a run for his money.

Dion, of course, will be gone. His stoic speech may hold the party over for a while, but the fact is, he gave the Liberals their worst result in living memory. When all is said and done, it’s more than likely that Dion will be only the second Liberal leader not to be Canada’s Prime Minister. His ideas may have been far too ahead of his time, especially in an era of economic uncertainty. One day, voters will embrace a green plan. One that is less complicated and expressed in more eloquent terms than Dion’s broken English could muster.

This election, however, was Harper’s to win. Harper’s rise to political power has been an improbable one, and although his shrewd political maneuvers have certainly helped him on the way, it has mostly been the Liberals’ mistakes that gave him the country’s top job. From Paul Martin’s dithering campaign to the internal power struggles to the sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives have been feasting on the skeleton of a party. Through two terms, Harper has failed to define himself as someone Canadians can embrace. He has alienated voters as well as the opposition.

When Harper leaves power, his legacy will be likely one of scorn rather than reverence. He leaves behind a trail of debris where politics is concerned. Harper brought to Canadian federal politics the now-familiar negative attack ads, complete with ominous music and gloomy graphic art. He survived, not won, two elections without promoting any policy, without standing on any political platform. His party benefited from the best possible timings, and yet could not be trusted enough with a majority government. For what it’s worth, he won by Americanizing Canadian politics. Instead of promoting big ideas, or debating policy, he pointed fingers and endlessly smeared his opponents.

What has been made clear by this election is that at least some degree of political reform is necessary. With the lowest voter turnout in history (59%), it is obvious to everyone that the system isn’t working. Our antiquated First Past the Post system failed to represent Candians’ interests, and the Parliamentary dialogue between parties has broken down. The final results show that 51% of the electorate voted for combined centre-left parties (Liberal, NDP, and Greens), compared to the Conservatives’ 38% (the only right-leaning party). Despite this, we will be entering our second session of the most conservative government in a century.

Electoral reform proponents have been trumpeting proportional representation for years. However, this proposal has never received any traction, likely due to its complexity and ambiguity. (How do you decide which people go to parliament in proportional representation? How are regions represented? How do you ensure individual accountability?) Many of the benefits of proportional representation can be had by instead implementing an Instant Run-Off or Preferential voting system. While it adds complexity to the ballot counting, it is certainly less of an overhaul than proportional representation, with less of its associated costs and uncertainty. This would solve the biggest problem we have in today’s political atmosphere, with a united right and a fracture left (or conversely, a decade ago with a strong left and a fractured right).

What is also needed is a better check-and-balance mechanism. Unlike in the United States, where there are three separate elected legislative branches (the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives) each keeping the others in check, we have in Canada only a misrepresented House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Whatever the reforms are, it is clear that an appointed Senate is no longer appropriate. Since this “Upper House” already exists, simply making it an elected body will not be difficult. Doing so also increases the accountability of our government, and can serve to keep the House of Commons in check. It will also give voters more confidence in our leaders, yielding a greater chance of productive majority commons, given that there is an elected Senate to keep the House in check.

But with Harper’s ironclad rule, will he listen to cries of electoral reform? Or will he ignore them, turning his back on promises of reform and accountability, and his political youth when he, too, called for change?