By Lloyd Mackey

FROM a politically co-operative perspective, there were hopeful words last week, from both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Harper, speaking on January 28 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, referred movingly to the G-20 Summit in 2008, in Washington, D.C.

He declared: "If I may be indulged in a personal recollection, what I saw at the Washington Summit made a huge impression upon me. Nations whose interests have been often at odds, nations with different traditions of governance - rivals, even former enemies - found themselves addressing common problems with a common will.

"In this globalized economy, they recognized that a flood engulfing one would soon swamp them all. So, even though these 20-some leaders all represented sovereign states, they agreed to common, synchronized actions -- to chart the same course toward calmer waters."

And Ignatieff, speaking to a Liberal caucus meeting in Ottawa January 20, said that Liberals "talk too easily ... about being the natural party of government. If I can achieve one thing as a leader . . . it is to get that out of our vocabulary."

Although he did not put such a sentiment into words, Ignatieff was likely addressing the penchant of some Liberals to use parliament and its committees to portray the governing party unfairly as something sinister and perhaps even illicit. Such activity betrays a sense of entitlement, that has some Liberal activists acting with undue haste and vitriol to drive Harper and his Conservatives into the Ottawa River.

From where I sit, the proroguing of parliament for a few weeks was the prime minister's protective response to those tactics, designed to allow for a cooling off period, followed by a resumption of more civility in the debating of social and fiscal issues.

It also allows the Senate to restructure in a way that will enable the government's legislation to move more smoothly toward enactment - and perhaps pave the way toward an elected and limited-term upper house.

All of this brings me to a favourite theme: collaborative governance -- something that stops short of a grand coalition like Germany enjoyed in recent years; or a national unity government, which exists often in times of great national tension.

It has been stated in this space, a time or two, that the Conservative minority government functions best when the "blue liberals" or "urban conservatives" within the Liberal party are able to work quietly to hold their more bombastic colleagues at bay.

Sometimes, friends of mine who dislike Harper suggest a different kind of collaboration. The prime minister is a bully and a despot, they say, and he needs to be gone. Further, they believe that if the social conservatives could disappear as well, then the Liberals could team up with the 'progressive' conservatives.

I respond genially, saying the more ethical way to operate is to disabuse themselves of the Harper-is-a-bully-despot myth. That leaves them free to collaborate with the elected government when the opportunities present themselves, as undoubtedly they will.

All this brings me back to the opening quote from Harper's Davos speech.

While the prime minister is a very serious and sometimes seemingly overly introspective leader, he has grown in office. I would suggest his Davos comment reflects that growth.

Further, Ignatieff, by lecturing his party about the "natural governing" tendency, has shown that he might be capable of constructively responding -- without groveling, of course -- to Harper's offers of goodwill, and his willingness to take counsel.

By pacing alongside the Conservatives, as constructive critics, the Liberals could bring about -- in due course -- real political realignment. In that way, the blue liberals, at least, could find a new home. And the pink side of the party, nudged on by such former NDP premiers as Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh, could help a realignment form up on the left.

* * *

Continue article >>

All of that might seem like enough creative thinking for one week. But I would like to wrap up with some consideration of Stephen Harper's seemingly sudden interest in global issues relating to the health of mothers and children. He wants the G-8 nations, whose conclave he will chair this summer in the Muskoka, to deal with these issues.

I will preface these thoughts with reference to an incisive Paul Wells piece in the January 29 issue of Maclean's.

Wells speaks of Harper's willingness to grapple with "hundreds of levers" of power and influence, not so much to reward cronies as to "change society . . . one step at a time."

The Maclean's article is a good backdrop to the mother-child health issue.

It is an issue where Harper has been listening intently to a range of NGOs and human rights organizations, of various stripes -- and now senses that the time is ripe for assertive action.

Here is what Harper said at the conclusion of his speech in Davos, with respect to this issue:

"As an example, let us close with something where progress is possible, if we are willing.

"It concerns the link between poverty and the appalling mortality among mothers and small children in the Third World. Did you know that every year over half a million women die in pregnancy; and nearly nine million children die before their fifth birthday?

"The numbers should shock and grieve us. Far too many lives and futures have been lost. And to the world's shame, so many have been lost for want of relatively simple health solutions, all well within reach of the international community.

"Often the keys of life are no more sophisticated than clean water or the most basic treatment against infection. That so little has been done is tragic. It is not just words on a page. It is real hunger, real suffering, real people dying."

And it is an issue that has moderate social conservatives and social liberals alike, working from the same page.

True, there is at least one landmine for Harper to keep in mind, as he leads the G-8 nations into a discussion. It relates to the problem of protecting the life of both the mother and unborn child, when both are at risk. The most doctrinaire politicians at both ends of that issue will be sure to articulate their respective stances.

* * *

There is a good deal of Christian input to be had with respect to both the global and spinoff issues. One such example, known to many Canadians, is the extensive and ground-breaking work being done by Jean Chamberlain Froese, who comes from south-western Ontario. Chamberlain Froese is founder of Save the Mothers, which is committed to protecting some of the estimated 525,000 mothers who die in childbirth each year, worldwide.

She has worked in both Yemen and Uganda. Along with her husband, journalist Thomas Froese, she has written extensively about the maternal-child health issue for both Christian and mainstream readerships in Canada and Uganda.

People wanting to get up to speed on the issue should track down a copy of Where Have All the Mothers Gone? through www.savethemothers.org.

* * *

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.

February 3/2010