I don't think it's sufficiently widely appreciated just how odd the spectacle we have just witnessed in Alberta - a speech from the throne being immediately followed by a dissolution of a legislature at the request of the very government that authored the throne speech - is, so I'm going to explain it. I'll try to be brief.
In a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, the government has certain legislative privileges. If the Westminster-style democracy in question happens to be a heavily partisan one, then a majority government has virtually unlimited legislative privileges, but that's a cultural issue rather than a structural one, so I'm leaving those privileges aside. What I'm talking about instead is the ability to control the legislative agenda (with a few exceptions) and a monopoly on introducing money bills.
Now, since the government wasn't elected by anybody - rather, it was appointed by somebody who also wasn't elected by anybody - this might seem a little dumb. Which it is, frankly, but not as dumb as you might initially think. Because, in exchange for those legislative privileges, the government needs to get the legislature to sign off, in the most general of all senses, on its agenda. Hence the speech from the throne. That's where the government says "As Her Majesty's government, here's what we plan on using our legislative privileges to do during the coming session." And then the legislators - who were elected - get to decide, via a vote on the speech (which is always a confidence motion) whether they're okay with that agenda, or at least okay enough with that agenda that they're comfortable leaving those legislative privileges in the hands of the current government.
It all makes a certain amount of sense - much more sense, I'd say, than most elements of Westminster-style parliamentary democracies.
Anyway, here in Alberta we just had a speech from the throne. Only instead of following the format I explained above, we got a situation in which the government says "Here's what we plan on using our legislative privileges to do during the coming session," and then, while the legislators were digesting that and deciding whether they were in support of the speech or not, the government was like "also, we're asking Her Majesty to dissolve y'all."
The government is laying out its plans for a non-existent session of the legislature. Weird.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm confuzzled mainly by this odd juxtaposition of partisanship and populism that seems to exist in this province. The government has, as you said, pretty much a blank cheque until 2009, but chooses not to use it because Ed Stelmach "doesn't have a mandate". Or because they would like to exchange their large blank cheque with a super-large blank cheque which is functionally equal, but has more bragging rights.
So, are we- and by "we" I mean "Albertan Canadians", of which I am not one - electing a party or a person?
The answer to your question is that most Albertans think they're electing a party that adopts all of the characteristics of whoever happens to be leading it. Sort of like demonic possession.
But Stelmach doesn't really have a blank cheque until 2009; he has a cheque that needs to be signed by the legislature at the beginning of each legislative session and once per fiscal year. And even then, the legislature can revoke this cheque whenever it feels like it. But an election's not going to change that: elections don't give governments mandates, they give legislatures mandates. The legislature can then, in turn, give the government a mandate (albeit one that can be revoked at any time).
But really, I don't see anything particularly odd about Stelmach asking Her Majesty to dissolve the legislature (we're pretty much due for a dissolution anyway - by convention, their lifespan is only four years, with allowance for an extra year for unusual circumstances (although not extraordinary circumstances, for which there are special constitutional provisions (at the federal level, anyway))), but that he'd do so right after laying out to the legislature what his government planned to do during the coming - as it turns out, nonexistent - session.
That's not odd at all. It's obviously an election platform, and an abuse of position to get it out there. By making it a throne speech, it's perceived as more credible than an election platform.
But I don't feel like you addressed my confusion:
Is the election happening to give Stelmach a PC mandate? He was a compromise leadership candidate and nobody's first choice, so everyone's just a little pooped that he won; however, if he proves himself in an election, maybe people will fall into place behind him. Oberg was a symptom of that, no?
Also, you're obviously talking about a technical mandate, where I'm talking about a public mandate. As you say, if Albertans believe the PCs are their leader, then the PCs currently have no public mandate to govern.
It distresses me. I mean, the speech from the throne is always partisan and political, because everything in this bloody country is. But usually there's at least some respect paid to the process beneath all the posturing.
Catrin: I think Stelmach is merely following tradition by calling an election in the spring of the fourth year of the mandate. He could delay for another year, but that would be violating tradition (god forbid!) and he seems to think his party can win right now, so there's really no reason to delay. Might as well extend the "best before" date on that blank cheque.
- Mustafa Hirji
I guess that makes sense...I think I occasionally forget the effects of a non-fixed election date.
Post a Comment