By Lloyd Mackey

Note to readers: Watch for an interesting bar graph at the bottom of this piece -- just a way to celebrate that this is OttawaWatch #200.

Also, check the December 6 National Post -- where I will evidently be quoted about Stephen Harper and his approach to leadership. The story is written by Craig Offman.

* * *

THERE is much to be said this week, given the turmoil taking place in Ottawa.

Before I get to a rolling commentary on some of these issues, I want to comment on two things: Prime Minister Stephen Harper's December 4 press conference, announcing the prorogue of the House of Commons; and his brief television speech of the night before. The text of the speech is here.

I would be interested in feedback from readers on both matters.

In his speech, I thought I heard Harper saying he would not share power with a separatist party. And I also heard him say he continues to ask for the other parties to provide input to help the government in making economic decisions, particularly those related to preparation of the January 27 budget.

The question that occurred to me was: Would Harper encourage, if not power-sharing, at least information sharing, with the non-separatist parties -- and, along with that, a listening ear to the Bloc?

From this viewpoint, I believe the answer was yes. And that is the answer the prime minister gave in his high noon press conference, once Governor-General Michelle Jean cleared the way, in a meeting with him.

Truth to tell, the television address was a little too tightly-edited, and left just a bit of a hard edge to it. In the press conference, however, Harper was fulsome in his invitation to the other national parties to provide input to the budget process. And he framed the question of the Bloc in a constructive light, allowing for their legitimacy in providing economic recommendations in the light of their own Quebec-centred agenda.

The first polls since the coalition story hit the fan, from Ekos and Ipsos-Reid, show the Conservatives surging into majority territory -- at 44 and 46 percent, respectively, compared to the election day tally of 37 percent.

Now, we will get into the rest of today's analysis.

* * *

This past week provided some real-life examples of demonization, deification and their respective roles in the creating of conflict.

The coalition formed by the three opposition parties has landed us in the midst of what could become a 'coup-alition.' True, the present government backed away from the most contentious provisions in its economic update.

But opposition party leaders were firm that it was too late to reverse course. The intention remained to try to persuade the governor-general to replace the Conservative government with a de facto Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

It became obvious over last weekend that the concept of a coalition to bring down the Conservatives had been in play for some weeks, under the surface. To me, that is not surprising, because I had read and heard of the idea even while the election was on. Often, the expression of interest was accompanied by the thought that -- given his particular personality and leadership style -- the prime minister would, early on, make the mistake that would give the opposition its opening.

So, the unfolding scenario gave much grist for the argument that, no matter what was to happen in a minority situation, Stephen Harper and his government were already dead in the water, even if they behaved flawlessly.

* * *

All of which brings us to demonization. And Scott Reid is the example.

Appearing online on the Globe and Mail website over the past weekend was a column by Reid, a key Paul Martin advisor when the latter was prime minister. As some readers might recall, it was Reid who helped sink the Liberal ship when he was working with Martin, by suggesting that parents getting money from any Conservative child care plan might end up spending it on "beer and pop corn."

This time, Reid begins his commentary with "First things first: take him out." Later, he suggests: "Kill him: Kill him dead." The context makes it clear that "him" is Stephen Harper. And it provides some foggy assurance that the death Reid wishes is political, not physical.

That said, Reid's rationale is interesting. His reason for the takeout is two-fold. Harper is, in his words, "the most dangerous animal in the jungles of parliament." And he is dangerous because of what he could do to the Liberals.

In other words: get him before he gets us.

This is the kind of demonization that breaks out every so often in both the political and religious world. It is based on the idea that, if some person, doctrine or ideology is different from one's own, it is demonic in nature.

In the field of conflict studies, including those with some biblical point of reference, the reducing of the demonization factor often leads to the potential for resolving the conflict.

Having put forward Reid's perspective, we can move on to two Globe and Mail editorials, appearing December 1 and October 9.

Unlike its competitor, the National Post, it is more inclined, on balance, to support the Liberals than the Conservatives. It cannot, by any stretch, be considered a Harper lapdog. The Globe also provides the kind of thoughtful analysis that reduces the potential for demonization's worst impacts.

On October 9, the Globe concluded that, if Harper was to win a majority in the October 14 election, "it will be as a default choice, not a popular choice. Voters generally respect him -- and right now, competence trumps the unknown -- but if he ever hopes to complete the construction of a governing party of the right and be remembered as more than a middling, minority prime minister, [he] will have to show as much capacity to grow over the next four years as he has over the past four."

That conclusion came at the end of several hundred words of analysis, which began with the point that two anxieties, now in fair measure discounted by his growth as a sitting prime minister, "continue to fuel a passionate anti-Harper streak in Canadian politics."

In the light of that cautious endorsement before the election, I wondered what the Globe would say now, in the middle of the current crisis.

The conclusion of Monday's editorial notes: "Despite the events of the past few days, the Conservatives are better positioned to provide stable government than the [coalition] alternative. They should be given another chance to make this Parliament work. If, however, they take that opportunity as licence to continue their pattern of behaviour, setting aside the country's interests in pursuit of their own, the opposition will be justified in defeating them at the next opportunity."

I have used the Globe example, rather than advancing my own perspective on the current situation, because I sense that my own oft sympathetic observations of the Harper government are perhaps not quite objective enough to satisfy more combative readers.

Continue article >>

Let me suggest a couple of options, one not necessarily dependent on the other.

With the House prorogued until January 26, broad preparation -- with input from provinces, opposition parties and business and economic leaders -- will be necessary.

That should make a well-considered budget a winner. And that, in turn, will hopefully transform the coalition concept from being a divisive and destructive force, into a truly democratic information-sharing process. True, such a transformation might not be in the tradition of an adversarial parliament. But it would take advantage of many of the conflict management concepts available in our contemporary world.

On the practical side, there may well be a canvassing of 15 or so opposition MPs who might be seen to be concerned about the upsetting prospect of a 'coup-alition.'

Such an independent caucus would be committed for a suitable period of time to allow the Conservatives to give necessary economic leadership during the current instability. I won't speculate with respect to such a group's leadership. Let's just see what happens.

Hopefully, a level of trust would develop between such a caucus and the Harper government. Obviously, the prime minister's seeming mistrust of the present opposition was well-placed, despite stated willingness to reach out coming from all sides. It has become quite clear that discussions about removing the Tories without an election were being carried on under the surface, without too much restraint from party leaders.

There are some considerable ethical implications in this two-edged situation. An independent -- and trustworthy -- caucus might be what is required to give the government the comfort it needs to get us through the next critical months.

Should the prime minister apologize for any of his actions? No, at least not gratuitously. But he should continue to make clear his invitation to civility and collaboration. Sometimes, such invitations need to be extended ad nauseam, before anyone believes they are sincere.

And when there is a constructive response from an opponent -- even a tentative one -- he should be fulsome in giving credit to that person. I can say, personally, that Harper is fully capable of such behaviour, and practices it more often than is generally acknowledged. He has high standards for research and factuality, and offers full credit when others meet those standards.

All that said, I would suggest the Conservatives have already taken the first steps necessary to unwind from whatever their own responsibility might be in the present crisis. That happened when the major points of contention in the economic statement were withdrawn.

The cooling off period is the time when the prime minister can, both by word and action, put forward the right hand of civility and collaboration

And what of the larger picture?

I believe it is important to try to look to the future by observing from where we have been coming, in the whole area of Canadian political realignment.

Some readers might recall my talking a few weeks ago about the decline of the Liberals and the rise of the conservative parties since the rout of the federal Tories in 1993.

Some friends suggested that I put that information into the form of a graph. Gord Walford, a retired statistician and an influencer in the Public Service Christian Fellowship, was kind enough to create that graph, given my technical lack in that area.

The conclusion of today's OttawaWatch is below the graph.

The points worth noting show the trends from 1993 to 2008.

At the bottom of the chart are the seat performances of the conservative groups -- the Reform, Progressive Conservative, Canadian Alliance and Conservative parties.

Then, in the middle, is the seat performance of the Liberals, in pink. In effect, as the Liberals declined from majority position to their present status, the conservatives have risen from under 50 seats to near-majority. And if the trends from the new polls hold for a period of time, that purple bar will grow longer yet, approaching where the Liberal pink bar was in 1993.

Harper gets a lot of the credit for the Conservative unity and growth, but he did not do it alone. At various times, such names as Preston Manning, Elsie Wayne, Brian Mulroney, Don Mazankowski, Diane Ablonczy, Peter McKay, Chuck Strahl, Stockwell Day and, yes, former Liberal deputy prime minister, John Manley, have contributed to this growth -- although not always at the same time. (An interesting bit of trivia: most of those named are people of faith. That might not be a coincidence.)

And, if a prorogue works for the Tories, what of the Liberals et al?

For the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, this suggestion: It took close to a decade from the bottoming out of the conservative movement to bring together the various elements of the centre and right. And, 15 years on, there is still work to be done.

The same holds for the bringing together of the left side of the Liberals, the NDP and those parts of the separatist movement who want to move toward the 'nation within Canada' idea. The cultures are different enough that it can't happen successfully at the first opportunistic attempt.

It was interesting to note that the coalescing parties spoke of bringing senior Liberal statespersons Frank McKenna and John Manley to an economic panel, as part of setting up a proposed new government. Both McKenna and Manley pointedly protested that they had no desire to be part of it. While they have not disavowed their liberalism, they are wise enough to know that their best value might yet be to encourage the Conservatives in their collaborative pursuits.

I leave comment on the deification of politicians to some other time, except to note that all the leaders have feet of clay. Any attempt to announce, as some people of faith do periodically, that their leader is God's anointed, creates more conflict than it resolves.

It might be that these days call for believing people to pray, in quiet places, for our leaders, all the while watching for hopeful signs in surprising places.

* * *

Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa and author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006), More Faithful Than We Think: Stories and Insights on Canadian Leaders Doing Politics Christianly (BayRidge Books, 2005) and Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning (ECW Press, 1997). Lloyd can be reached at lmackey@canadianchristianity.com.

December 5/2008