Minority government, why not?

Politics is an interesting spectacle these days. First, the minority Liberal government presented a budget bill that included generous tax cuts for the wealthy and stingy spending on social programs. The initial reaction from the Conservatives was to support the budget since most of it appears to have emerged from their platform. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois opposed it. But when the Tories sensed a potential electoral victory they decided to defeat the government on the corruption allegations paraded before the Gomery Commission. The Liberals then turned to the New Democratic Party who agreed to support an amended budget bill that postpones tax cuts and sharply increases social spending (including more funds to the provinces for health care and day-care programs). All this would be achieved without any tax increases and still leave some surplus to pay down the debt. Naturally, it would also keep the Liberals in office for a while longer.

The Conservatives, sensing potential for defeat, promise that they will not backtrack on any commitments made to the provinces for social programs promised in the revised Liberal budget. However, the Tories do not want to be seen as supporting a budget that provides increased spending; therefore, they're looking for some other excuse to defeat the government before the budget is passed.

Despite the noise and raucous behavior, these developments remind us once again that the best of social programs we now enjoy were passed by minority governments that had to depend on a smaller party to stay in power. Historical parallels abound. The Progressive Party persuaded the Liberals to give Canada its first national old age security program in the 1920s. The rise of the CCF party in the 1940's, was the impetus for the governing Liberals to enact universal Old Age Security and the Mothers' Allowance program.

In the 1960's, Prime Minister Lester Pearson maneuvered through two minority governments by expanding the federal role in social programs that the NDP supported. This included Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan. Pearson used his considerable diplomatic skills to get Parliament to act on progressive pieces of legislation.

For a two year period in the 1970s, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had to depend on the NDP to hold onto power. Under the prodding of the NDP, the Liberals enacted new and more generous Unemployment Insurance rules, provided more funds for social assistance and for low income housing.

Between these periods of minority government, we engaged in discussions, debates, studies, commissions, pilot projects and expressions of support by the leaders of all political parties for new social programs. Talk abounded but few significant gains in social policy appeared. In these periods of "stable" government, we suffered unstable economies, falling currency, high unemployment and national inertia.

Continuing minority government is a strong possibility and its possible that we could have even more than the four parties now sitting in the federal parliament if the Green party makes gains and another Quebec-oriented party were to emerge.

The idea of minority and/or coalition governments are an anathema to many Canadians because a sturdy part of our British political heritage is an insistence on majority government. We have implicitly designed our parliamentary system to favor rule by one party regardless of the statistical realities. Conventional wisdom persuades us that the only way to achieve "peace, order and good government," as our constitution states, is to be governed by a party that might receive as little as 38% of the votes, hold 65% of the seats and yet govern as if it had 100% of everything.

We realize now that parliamentary majorities do not necessarily emerge and it is unlikely that the next election will bring a majority government to power. Clearly, some new approach is needed.

Canadians should be prepared to think the unthinkable--how to live with a House of Commons that is more representative of a wider range of views than we have ever had before. We have to discard our intolerance of coalition government and look beyond the English-speaking world, to the European countries where no party has had a majority and yet they have managed to achieved stable and progressive governments. New Zealand has also managed to achieve a stable, coalition government. We Canadians need to change our attitude and learn to negotiate the new realities.