Thought for the Day

[bcholmes]

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric," said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs. "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.

— "Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts"

Comments

[sarah-dragon.livejournal.com]

I think the comments about Harper's ideas being more American style are a bit general and slightly misleading. An American President could not just dissolve the government if he did not like the layout of congress. Now he can ignore congress as most Presidents have but if he gets stuck with a majority opposition, he has to live with it for at least two years.

And Harper changes his tactics to fit the situation, so I think you could sum up his views on Democracy as "Annoy and pester the people long enough and eventually the opposition will grow tired of the game." Which is a viable tactic, if not necessarily democratic.