This was a long time in coming. From the perspective of its legal institutions - the different offices and bodies through which political power is dispersed, the set of rules and regulations governing the exercise of authority - Canada is a complete mess. The Constitution not only contains an opt out clause for provincial governments, it hasn't ever been ratified by Quebec. The power to prorogue Parliament, call elections and choose which party leaders will have a shot at forming a government is invested in the Governor General, an office which is a pure Imperial British legacy, with the sole concession to the Canadian people being that it is the Prime Minister and not Her Majesty who makes the appointment. There's a common truism that Canada is a country that works better in practice than in theory, and if anything that's an understatement - Canada, in theory, doesn't work at all.
And yet, in practice this is a remarkably country - prosperous, certainly, but much more than that. Canada was a successful multicultural society before it was trendy to be one. Despite the remarkable diversity of background, language and race of its inhabitants, it has maintained a sense of social solidarity and cooperation. This is reflected in lower social inequality, better race relations and less violent crime than in societies roughly comparable, like Britain and the US. It is this social quality - the tolerant and cooperative nature of Canadian society - that sets it apart from other Western democracies, and that makes it such a remarkable place in which to live. The reason why we can get by with such a disordered formal politics is also because of this sensibility - a tilt towards cooperation rather than conflict lets our politics muddle through to sensible outcomes.
Except for now. Now all the seams in our imperfect constitutional garment are visible, and every party is busy opportunistically pulling at threads, hoping that their rivals position will become untenable a minute before their own. Not content with keeping the ugliness in Ottawa, both parties, though the Conservative government especially and in the most toxic and despicable way, has sought to bring the Canadian public in to the middle of this dispute, and leverage anti-Bloc and anti-Quebec sentiment into accusations of treason and appeals to what must be called hate. A three-party coalition government bringing down the biggest party in Parliament may be a sly political trick, and may fly in the face of the recent election results, but it is not in itself "un-Canadian." What is indisputably un-Canadian is the irresponsibility of making these accusations, and turning what amounts to the failure of an in-house tactical struggle to deprive the opposition parties of their public funding into an ideological Götterdämmerung, an existential duel over purity and patriotism. This is politics gentlemen - just politics.
While the parties of the left - the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc - have not been at their best in this debate, the blame for this sorry state of affairs must fall on the prime instigator, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He is the leader of this country, and the head of a major party. These are political positions, but they are also civic positions and ones which carry great responsibility along with their status and visibility. Harper clearly enjoys those positions - he loves to be in power, he mugs for the camera, he changes costume and strikes poses (though he can never quite shed his basic awkwardness) - but his character does not match his ambition. The last elections were called early, opportunistically, to try and capitalize on the weakness of the Liberal Party, and he took the unprecedented step of approaching the Governor General to dissolve Parliament without having lost a confidence vote. In doing so he not only broke precedent, but he also broke the law - a law he wrote himself - and all for tactical political gain. Canadian voters did not give him his majority (the gave him 38% of the popular vote, far from a majority) - he had no mandate for radical change, and Canadians expected from their Prime Minister a plan for dealing with the economic crisis. But instead of taking up the crucial, painful problems related to a world-historical global recession and the destruction of billions of dollars of Canadian wealth in securities and real estate, Harper tried to ram through changes to the public financing of political parties meant to cripple the democratically elected opposition parties in the next general election. He has behaved as though he believes his main duty is not to govern Canada, but to win elections for the Conservative Party. Perhaps the Conservatives are happy with a leader like that, but Canadians certainly deserve better.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Voter supression and why it doesn't matter
In 2000 and 2004, the electoral outcome was determined by a small number of votes in crucial swing states. While this was the result of a hard fought campaign both times, it also reflected (especially in 2004) a deliberate strategy devised by Karl Rove, which counted on mobilizing a conservative base to reach a bare majority, moderate voters be damned. The linchpin of this strategy was in keeping turnout among conservatives (whether libertarians, Christian conservatives or neocons) high and, concomitantly, keeping turnout among Democratic constituencies (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans) low. This goal has been pursued through a number of tactics, most of them legally questionable (or outright illegal) shenanigans - there's purge lists disenfranchising eligible voters, the politicization of the justice department to prosecute (nonexistent) voter fraud in minority communities (which resulted not in prosecutions, but the firing of prosecutors), and the misinformation flyering of black neighborhoods.
These sketchy practices cut against the basic principles of democracy, and they are ones which Republican operatives have developed into a high art. My fear going into this election was that a slight Obama majority in the electorate might be overcome through these forms of vote suppression deftly executed in a few key districts. Looking at the polls and predictions going in today, I feel at ease - the margin for Obama is too large for vote suppression to decide this election. It's not that I doubt the willingness of Repulican operatives to shenanigan - they've proven quite willing to do so in the past - but the level of suppression would need to be so great as to be impossible to conceal, and the public is not apathetic enough to let that slide. Further, Republicans know this, and recognize that they may not enjoy the protection of the powers that be after this election, so the pool of would-be Katherine Harrises has shrunk considerably - there isn't the capacity to commit the type of fraud that would be necessary to falsify the election for McCain. This election will go down straight, and the winner will be the man with the most votes, unlike 2000.
These sketchy practices cut against the basic principles of democracy, and they are ones which Republican operatives have developed into a high art. My fear going into this election was that a slight Obama majority in the electorate might be overcome through these forms of vote suppression deftly executed in a few key districts. Looking at the polls and predictions going in today, I feel at ease - the margin for Obama is too large for vote suppression to decide this election. It's not that I doubt the willingness of Repulican operatives to shenanigan - they've proven quite willing to do so in the past - but the level of suppression would need to be so great as to be impossible to conceal, and the public is not apathetic enough to let that slide. Further, Republicans know this, and recognize that they may not enjoy the protection of the powers that be after this election, so the pool of would-be Katherine Harrises has shrunk considerably - there isn't the capacity to commit the type of fraud that would be necessary to falsify the election for McCain. This election will go down straight, and the winner will be the man with the most votes, unlike 2000.
Election Day in the USA
I just came back from my polling station (Oakland Fire Station #8) in North Oakland - I gave a short account of the goings on for CBC Daybreak South while my friends were casting their ballots. Despite the reports of long lines and malfunctions in parts of the US, we were in and out in less then 10 minutes, and there were never more than two people in line. Around the block you could find No on Proposition 8 activists cajoling people to the polls, but otherwise the mood was very neighborly and laid back, though you could sense a certain anticipation from people leaving the voting booths I'm looking forward to watching the results coming in, and spending all afternoon soaking in the dangerous yet inspiring behemoth that is American democracy. For those keeping track, here are my predictions for the results. After my dismal showing predicting Canadian results, I've been more conservative, but I may be overcompensating:
Sunday, October 19, 2008
What do Iceland and Pakistan have in common? Bankruptcy
Last week, Iceland nationalized its banking sector. The three big Icelandic banks (which had a remarkable footprint in Britain) spent the last decade taking out foreign loans in order to expand operations over seas. As the krona - the Icelandic currency - dropped as a result of the world-wide financial crisis, their debt burden skyrocketed, and they could no longer run basic operations. The state stepped in - only in turns out the national economy isn't big enough, let alone the state budget (from the telegraph) :
Perhaps to cheer up the Icelanders, Pakistan has also announced that it's nearing bankruptcy, lacking sufficient hard currency reserves to service its debt obligations. It looks like Musharraf picked a good time to retire as it is now up to his successor, Asif Ali Zardari, to take on the humiliating task of going from foreign capital to foreign capital, hat in hand, begging for a bailout (Saudi Arabia and China have already told him no). Both countries have been forced to come pleading to the IMF, which seems willing and able to provide a bailout, but under its notoriously draconian conditions - basically, no social spending or economic regulation allowed. Previous bailouts did restore countries to a respectable economic condition (in Latin American and Asia in the 80s and 90s) but at great social cost, but that was under generally favorable international economic conditions. What will happen given the global economic crisis is anybody's guess.
While Iceland's implosion will sadden fans of Mum and Noi Albinoi as well as readers of sagas everywhere, the economic collapse of Pakistan is more universally terrifying - an unstable Islamic country, with an active Taliban-linked insurgency (and a separatist movement) as well as a nuclear stockpile and an unresolved, bloody border dispute with India, the result might not be the well-behaved misery of South Korea after the financial crisis but instead a political environment more closely resembling Iraq in 2005 (and that's the optimistic scenario - the pessimistic one is Weimar Germany).
Iceland had also presided over the fastest expansion of a banking system anywhere in the world. Little did anyone know that the expansion once so admired would go on to saddle the country with liabilities in excess of $100 billion – liabilities that now dwarf its gross domestic product of $14 billion.Given a population of 313,000, $100 billion means that each Icelander's share of that debt comes to $320 000. Unless international creditors are willing to accept payment in Bjork CDs and fermented shark meat, this isn't going to be paid off.
Perhaps to cheer up the Icelanders, Pakistan has also announced that it's nearing bankruptcy, lacking sufficient hard currency reserves to service its debt obligations. It looks like Musharraf picked a good time to retire as it is now up to his successor, Asif Ali Zardari, to take on the humiliating task of going from foreign capital to foreign capital, hat in hand, begging for a bailout (Saudi Arabia and China have already told him no). Both countries have been forced to come pleading to the IMF, which seems willing and able to provide a bailout, but under its notoriously draconian conditions - basically, no social spending or economic regulation allowed. Previous bailouts did restore countries to a respectable economic condition (in Latin American and Asia in the 80s and 90s) but at great social cost, but that was under generally favorable international economic conditions. What will happen given the global economic crisis is anybody's guess.
While Iceland's implosion will sadden fans of Mum and Noi Albinoi as well as readers of sagas everywhere, the economic collapse of Pakistan is more universally terrifying - an unstable Islamic country, with an active Taliban-linked insurgency (and a separatist movement) as well as a nuclear stockpile and an unresolved, bloody border dispute with India, the result might not be the well-behaved misery of South Korea after the financial crisis but instead a political environment more closely resembling Iraq in 2005 (and that's the optimistic scenario - the pessimistic one is Weimar Germany).
The Week After - Post-election Analysis
So the election is over and done. We know who won and who lost - but what does it all mean?
The Conservatives are a little at sea in confronting the economic crisis. The market is supposed to work, goddamn it, and a pro-market party is ill equipped to deal with a crisis triggered by a massive failure of free financial markets. As a result, Harper seems to be lifting Dion's plan by calling a first minister's meeting to address the issue. I don't know what the results of that will be - this is not a crisis that one can solve through deregulation and tax cuts, the preferred Conservative policy solutions to pretty much anything. My guess - and this is a guess only - is that we may see some sort of stimulus package, with cheques in the mail and more money going to the provinces for infrastructure programs to offset private sector job losses and bankruptcies. Any aggressive agenda on social issues or reworking of Canadian society in a free market direction will have to be put on hold - the minority government will need the acquiesence of opposition MPs, and will have more than enough on its plate in confronting the inevitable recession.
For the Liberals, this means the end of Dion's leadership. Hopefully a long and costly leadership struggle won't result, with either Ignatieff or Rae clinching the job early and consolidating their position in good order. The Green Shift will be shelved, but hopefully not for long - it represents a very rare sort of policy program, sound both enivronmetally and economically.
The NDP had a very good showing, which will likely allow Jack Layton to keep his job. Ditto for the Bloc and Giles Duceppe, who may have lost a seat but can claim credit for "Bloc"ing (I'm very sorry) Harper in Quebec and maintaining his party's position. The Greens did very well, almost doubling their vote share, but did not manage a single seat. That is enough to keep the party together for the next election, but may force a reconsideration of campaign tactics.
Going forward, the 40th Parliament of Canada is unlikely to last long. Although the financial crisis seems to have avoided hurting Canada directly - the banks remain sound, even those with subprime losses and extensive investments in the States - the damage to the world economy cannot be understated, and the contraction in foreign demand, combined with decreased spending by Canadians whose asset values have tanked, will push the country into a painful recession. Even if the Conservatives do everything right, Canadians will be hurting economically and will blame the government (in retrospect, the Liberal loss may be a blessing for that party - it won't be their reputation that takes the hit), and the popularity of the Conservatives will suffer as a result. Minority status represents a real danger for the Conservatives - mirroring Harper's opportunistic engineering of the timing of this election, the opposition can sit back and let tough times take down the Conservative's numbers before yanking the rug out from under them with a no confidence vote at the opportune moment. This Parliament won't serve a full term - a year and a half, two years tops.
The Conservatives are a little at sea in confronting the economic crisis. The market is supposed to work, goddamn it, and a pro-market party is ill equipped to deal with a crisis triggered by a massive failure of free financial markets. As a result, Harper seems to be lifting Dion's plan by calling a first minister's meeting to address the issue. I don't know what the results of that will be - this is not a crisis that one can solve through deregulation and tax cuts, the preferred Conservative policy solutions to pretty much anything. My guess - and this is a guess only - is that we may see some sort of stimulus package, with cheques in the mail and more money going to the provinces for infrastructure programs to offset private sector job losses and bankruptcies. Any aggressive agenda on social issues or reworking of Canadian society in a free market direction will have to be put on hold - the minority government will need the acquiesence of opposition MPs, and will have more than enough on its plate in confronting the inevitable recession.
For the Liberals, this means the end of Dion's leadership. Hopefully a long and costly leadership struggle won't result, with either Ignatieff or Rae clinching the job early and consolidating their position in good order. The Green Shift will be shelved, but hopefully not for long - it represents a very rare sort of policy program, sound both enivronmetally and economically.
The NDP had a very good showing, which will likely allow Jack Layton to keep his job. Ditto for the Bloc and Giles Duceppe, who may have lost a seat but can claim credit for "Bloc"ing (I'm very sorry) Harper in Quebec and maintaining his party's position. The Greens did very well, almost doubling their vote share, but did not manage a single seat. That is enough to keep the party together for the next election, but may force a reconsideration of campaign tactics.
Going forward, the 40th Parliament of Canada is unlikely to last long. Although the financial crisis seems to have avoided hurting Canada directly - the banks remain sound, even those with subprime losses and extensive investments in the States - the damage to the world economy cannot be understated, and the contraction in foreign demand, combined with decreased spending by Canadians whose asset values have tanked, will push the country into a painful recession. Even if the Conservatives do everything right, Canadians will be hurting economically and will blame the government (in retrospect, the Liberal loss may be a blessing for that party - it won't be their reputation that takes the hit), and the popularity of the Conservatives will suffer as a result. Minority status represents a real danger for the Conservatives - mirroring Harper's opportunistic engineering of the timing of this election, the opposition can sit back and let tough times take down the Conservative's numbers before yanking the rug out from under them with a no confidence vote at the opportune moment. This Parliament won't serve a full term - a year and a half, two years tops.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Election predictions
Some people make election predictions weeks ahead of time, confident of their ability to predict outcomes from structural facts and big trends. I am not one of those people, and my willingness to dither until the last minute has allowed me to avoid the embarrassment of having my Conservative sweep prediction, er, swept away by the US financial melt down. So here are my numbers:
Conservative minority government
(not a majority thanks to everyone in LA who had their property repossessed, not a Liberal minority thanks to Dion's perpetually peptic expression)
Conservatives: 115
Liberals: 99
NDP: 41
Bloc: 51
Green: 0
Other: 2
If I am mistaken, the fault is clearly someone elses. This time, I'm blaming my sisters cat, who selfishly requires food and water.
The upshot of this result is another closely constrained and unstable Conservative government, and an almost immediate gear-up for the next election. Little will get done, except some kind of stimulus package and perhaps (if the market fails to recover) a federal guarantee of pensioners income.
Conservative minority government
(not a majority thanks to everyone in LA who had their property repossessed, not a Liberal minority thanks to Dion's perpetually peptic expression)
Conservatives: 115
Liberals: 99
NDP: 41
Bloc: 51
Green: 0
Other: 2
If I am mistaken, the fault is clearly someone elses. This time, I'm blaming my sisters cat, who selfishly requires food and water.
The upshot of this result is another closely constrained and unstable Conservative government, and an almost immediate gear-up for the next election. Little will get done, except some kind of stimulus package and perhaps (if the market fails to recover) a federal guarantee of pensioners income.
What the Parties Want - Bloc Quebecois
This particular question has a one word answer - independence.
Giles Duceppe wants Canada to look like: Canada, but with a Quebec-shaped hole between Ontario and New Brunswick
Best case scenario: The Bloc doesn't get its way.
Worst case scenario: The Bloc gets its way.
Likelihood of success: Entirely dependent on how badly the economic crisis gets in Quebec and who they decide to blame for it.
Giles Duceppe wants Canada to look like: Canada, but with a Quebec-shaped hole between Ontario and New Brunswick
Best case scenario: The Bloc doesn't get its way.
Worst case scenario: The Bloc gets its way.
Likelihood of success: Entirely dependent on how badly the economic crisis gets in Quebec and who they decide to blame for it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)