NDP is often jokingly translated as the No Dissent Party or as meaning No Discernible Prospects.  While the latter is just a mean attack on their flagging fortunes it may be more related to the former than first glance reveals.  No Dissent necessarily means no new ideas and why would anyone vote for a party without ideas?  It is equally a wonder why the party would cling to the same old same old when it faces loss after loss.  No Dissent Party is not just a mean joke at the NDP’s expense but a legitimate description.  Of all the Canadian political parties the NDP is arguably the most dogmatic.  The Liberals and Conservatives stand for little beyond trying to get their man (usually) into the Prime Minister’s residence.  The Bloc has similar dogmatic problems to the NDP but these are sometimes softened by the coalition it needs must bring together around its special policy of getting Quebec the hell out of Canada.  To make a comment, ask a question, or worse actually make an argument at an NDP meeting that is not in lock step with the sanctioned view of the party establishment is to invite an atmosphere comparable to a commissar failing to clap long enough for Stalin or suggesting health care is a good thing at a Republican Party convention.  (I wanted to provide a metaphor from the Left and the Right lest any of my readers fall into the trap the only the Left becomes dogmatic.  It can happen to any political group).

To give you an example:  I attended the 1997 Ontario NDP Leadership convention in Hamilton Ontario as a Riding delegate.  The second evening I spent enjoying the benefits of free Scotch from a number of hospitality suites and conversing with fellow members of the party from across the province.  In one of these conversations the topic of open shops came up.  Only in Canada, Britain and the United States is the automatic check off system exclusively used.  This is called a closed shop because workers have no choice but to join the union if they wish to work at that ‘shop’.  In Europe an open shop system is used where workers choose not only whether or not to join the union but which union they want to join.  Their membership and the benefits of it continue even it they are unemployed.  I have always believed that the closed shop, automatic check off system was a mixed blessing.  Canada adopted it during the second world war in a deal between the union organizations of the time and the government.  While it benefits workers by making if very difficult to break a union or to set worker against worker, it also has a tendency to make unions complacent toward their membership and narrow in their outlook.  European unions are broader organizations and far more politically active and effective than North American unions who cannot see beyond the legalism of the contract.  Anyway such was what seemed a pleasant argument between two men well into their cups.

Little did I know that my conversation in its entirety would be reported to union and party delegates who would duly descend upon their minions within my own Riding group at the convention to set me straight.  Slightly hungover and badly needing more coffee I stumbled onto the convention floor the next morning oblivious to the ambush that awaited me.  Suddenly surrounded I was accused of being a dupe of corporations and anti-union.  I was told I did not know what socialism was (it apparently having been conclusively defined by the NDP without my awareness) and that I was damaging the party by having discussions like that of the night before even in  such a private setting as a hospitality suite of an NDP convention.  I suppose there might have been Liberal or Conservative spies present who might have used my words to undermine the prospects for the party to take power.  Considering the party has No Discernible Prospects I thought this fear a little far fetched.  The whole affair seemed to me to be over dramatic.  Again this was just a casual academic conversation over the pros and cons of two sides of an issues to pass the time fueled by liberal (oops. Oh my God! they were right see how it sneaks in) amounts of alcohol.  The idea of a plan to raise a resolution concerning the matter on the floor of the convention didn’t even exist.  We were killing time so we could continue to drink, nothing more.

My relationships within the Riding Association were permanently affected by this incident and  a couple of more like it.  Times when I just, erroneously, believed that I could question the status quo, explore new ground or freshen those things we had come to believe in for a long time by giving them a thorough examination at a meeting or in conversation with another member without being labeled a heretic and my motives and loyalties coming under suspicion.  The final break for me with the NDP came three years after the events described above when a rather innocent incident concerning a strike was twisted into an assault on me by someone who felt it appropriate to settle an unrelated personal grudge using the mechanisms of the party.

So today I avoid joining political organizations of all sorts.  It saddens me because I love the social interaction of people of like mind but I have yet to see one not fall victim to dogmatism, a set truth from which variance is discouraged.  The world is not a set place.  As I said above that which refuses to grow must die.  It is true for organizations as it is for human beings.

So what comes next?  The Liberals and NDP are talking coalition.  They would still need the support of the Bloc Quebecois in order to govern but the Bloc, at least at this point, will not be a part of the coalition government.  The Conservatives are going to argue, if it comes to that, that a coalition is unconstitutional and that the governor-general should call an election instead.  Most Canadians are unaware that nothing of our governing system is in the Constitution.  The only vague reference in CA1867 (formerly the British North America Act) is in the preamble where is mentions forming a government similar in kind to that of Great Britain.  Our current governing system does reflect, in its basic structures, the Westminister model of government.  The prime minister was not even mentioned in the Constitution until the 1982 amendment.  So what Mr. Harper is hanging his hat on is something called constitutional conventions.  These are unwritten bits of the constitution.  A constitutional convention is another way of saying tradition.  Those practices that have arisen and stood the test of time are understood as constitutional by the courts.  It is equal to the precedent concept.  While the courts do recognize them, it doesn’t mean that they can’t be overruled if it seems that they have outlived their usefulness or are in some way injurious to the society.  They are much easier to change than anything that is actually written into the constitutional documents. 

Are there precendents?  The closest would be the Liberal-NDP Accord in the Ontario provincial legislature in 1985.  This was not a coalition.  In exchange for the passage of specific legislation, the NDP committed to not defeat the government on a confidence motion for two years.  At the time the Conservatives held the most seats in the legislature but were finding it impossible to govern as a minority.  When Frank Miller resigned as premiere, David Peterson, with the Accord in hand, presented the lieutenant-governor with the option of allowing him to form a government, thus avoiding an election so soon on the heels of the last.  The other precedent that comes to mind is the Union Government of 1917 but in that case the coalition was arranged prior to the election and ran as such.  There are other examples of deals between parties to support a minority government such as the ‘Shopping List’ presented by the NDP to the Conservatives and Liberals in 1972 (for those of you who don’t remember or are too young to remember the Liberals won the bidding).  So all in all while there is no direct precedent, a federal coalition government in no way contridicts what has gone before.  We have a history of cooperative efforts between parties and a coalition would be just another level up. 

It would create a greater constitutional crisis for Canada if the governor-general were to deny the request of the Liberals to form a coalition.  Another fact that Canadians don’t fully understand is that we, the people, do not elect the prime minister.  We elect a person in our riding.  That person belongs to a specific party in most cases (leaving independents aside for the moment).  When the seat count is added up the party with the most seats usually forms the government.  That’s right, usually.  While there is not an actual vote for prime minister the House of Commons nonetheless does make the choice.  A prime minister remains in office as long as she/he retains the confidence of the House.  At any moment, whether in majority or minority, if a prime minister loses on a confidence vote she/he must resign.  Of course this has never happened in a majority situation in Canada and is not likely to.  But it is a real possibility in minority.  On the other hand, if a party leader can provide proof that they would enjoy the confidence of the House, the governor-general would be hard pressed to deny them the opportunity.  This is the situation which appears to be forming up.  Therefore, if Stephane Dion (providing he is still leading the Liberal Party) approaches Governor-General Michaëlle Jean and proposes a coalition government with the NDP supported by the Bloc with all parties in agreement, her only answer can be to give him the opportunity. 

Is all this hullabaloo necessary?  Probably not but it was inevitable.  Stephen Harper had shown himself incapable of working in a minority situation in the last parliament when he had even fewer seats.  Now with the scent of majority in his nose there would be no dealing with him at all.  Stephen is one of those people whose look matches their personality.  He really is just as anal as he looks.  Hell you couldn’t pull a needle out of his butt with a backhoe.  Anal retentive people tend to be control freaks unable to compromise and successful minority governments are all about compromise.  And in the end that is what a democracy should be. 

We must wait to see how this all plays out.  The Conservatives may find a compromise or the opposition parties may get cold feet before the December 8 vote in the House of Commons and all this speculation will be for naught.