pro⋅rogue –verb (used with object), -rogued, -ro⋅guing.

1. to discontinue a session of (the British Parliament or a similar body).

2. to defer; postpone

(From Reference.com - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Prorogue)

As I write this blog, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is meeting with the Governor General to ask her to prorogue (or suspend) Parliament. 

The Governor General is the Head of State’s representative and the Prime Minister is her principal advisor – that is the relationship in a Constitutional Monarchy, and the Governor General, by convention, would normally accept the advise of her Prime Minister, and therefore prorogue Parliament.

However, this situation is different, Parliament has only been in session for 2 weeks.  Stephen Harper’s request for suspension of Parliament appears to be a ruse to avoid a vote of confidence on Monday that he will more than likely lose. 

If the Governor General accepts his advise and prorogues Parliament today, this sets a dangerous precedent, as it means that any Prime Minister in the future can use this tactic to get out of a political jam.

If she denies it, by convention the Prime Minister would have to resign, as he has lost the confidence of the Head of State.

We live in interesting times.

Update: – The Governor General accepted the Prime Minister's request for a prorogation of Parliament.  Probably the best scenario, as it allows time for a cooling off period.  I am concerned, however, with the legal precedent.

The Conservatives continue to claim that a coalition government consisting of Liberal and NDP MPs would be undemocratic.  Maybe its time they took some lessons in democracy.

Canada’s government is based on the concept of Representational Democracy, and follows the English model – as a former colony.  When we go to the polls we elect a Member of Parliament – we do NOT elect a Party.  That the Member we elect is a member of a Party is not theoretically of any importance.

Once the election is concluded the Head of State, in our case the Governor General – the Queen’s representative – chooses the individual as Prime Minister that he/she believes has the support of a majority of the members.  While this is normally the leader of the largest party, this is just because that leader can be expected to get a vote of confidence in Parliament.

If there is a vote of no confidence in Parliament, the Governor General has two choices, dissolve Parliament and call an election or ask someone else to see if they can get a vote of confidence passed.  Both of these options are completely democratic.

So Prime Minister Stephen Harper – you are a smart man – so stop trying to hoodwink Canadians about what is democratic and what is not, in order to save your political bacon.  If you were a real leader you would admit to making a mistake and call on the other political parties to work together to solve the economic mess we are in.

In October, there was a Federal election in Canada, which was won by the Conservatives.  The problem was that as there are 4 viable parties in Canada - the Conservatives, while winning the most seats did not win a majority of seats, so they can be defeated if all the other parties vote together.

Data from - http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

So the Conservatives were sworn in as the Government and have governed since. 

Last week, in responding to the financial crisis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to take advantage of the situation and using the excuse of “tough economic times”, the Finance Minister announced measures that eliminated the public funding for all political parties, as well as removing the legal right to strike for civil servants, in what has been perceived by many political pundits (both left and right) as a blatant partisan move - (neither move has any significant impact on the economy).

Now there is a constitutional crisis as the other three parties with seats in Parliament have united to attempt to overthrow the government – combined they have 163 seats to the Conservatives 143.  The Liberals and NDP have signed an agreement that they will provide the option of a Coalition Government, and the Bloc Quebecois while not agreeing to part of the coalition, have agreed to support the other two parties for 18 months.

Conservatives are crying fowl, saying this is un-democratic, but wait they only have 143 seats, less than 50%, and they were supported by 38% of the voters, so what is more democratic, a Conservative government supported by 38% of the voters or a Liberal/NDP government supported by 44% of the voters. 

If the Bloc’s votes are included, and as mentioned above they have agreed to support the Liberal/NDP coalition for 18 months, the three parties combined have more than 50% of the seats and 54% of the votes, so again I ask – which is more democratic?

One can certainly argue that the three parties were each rejected by a majority of voters, but the same can be said for the Conservatives – 38% does not constitute a ringing endorsement, but while the Conservatives seem intent on partisan solutions to the Economic troubles, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois are offering a tri-partisan cooperative approach.

The next few days will be interesting, as this all plays out.  Will we have to go the polls again in the new year, or will we have a coalition government for the first time since 1917.