Why is Prime Minister Stephen Harper looking so good-natured despite the relatively strong showing of his political opponents?
Many of those who have been watching the election debates have been struck by how genial Harper seems, despite the never-ending criticism of his policies by his political opponents as the Oct. 19 election looms closer.
Some have been struck by the prime minister’s calm demeanour during such a long, exhausting election campaign. Harper gives the impression of seemingly enjoying the campaign, unperturbed or unconcerned about the attacks.
Those of a cynical mind are beginning to wonder whether the prime minister’s apparent lack of concern over his political future, buttressed by an uncharacteristic even-tempered response to the wide-ranging criticism of his policies, might be a warning bell for his opponents.
Some have even expressed fear that Harper’s calmness could be a reflection of his confidence that, notwithstanding the final results of October’s vote, he will somehow manage to ensure his Conservative Party will remain in power.
Many would understandably be quick to insist that Harper could only expect to remain in power if his Conservatives win a majority (170 seats) of the 338 seats in Parliament, or the other major parties, the New Democratic Party or Liberal Party, also fail to individually win 170 seats.
However, as has been pointed out, if no single party manages to win the required 170 seats to have a firm majority, this could provide Harper the ability to remain in power until his party is defeated in a confidence vote in Parliament.
To avoid such a confidence vote being held, under current parliamentary procedure, Harper could theoretically continue in power by proroguing Parliament, i.e., discontinue temporarily the meetings of Parliament without actually dissolving it. This could leave him in power until next spring or so, since the Canadian Constitution requires Parliament to meet only once a year.
In this seemingly far-fetched situation, there’s speculation Harper would be in a position to step down as leader of the Conservative Party, paving the way for a new leader to be elected in the spring. This conceivably could give the Conservatives a less controversial and more popular leader.
This turnover of power supposedly would help the financially well-endowed Conservatives to call an election that they would stand a good chance of winning under a less confrontational leader who would rally the party’s loyal base of followers, who almost never abandon the Conservative cause.
While such a scenario would strike many people as far-fetched, if not bizarre, it has been claimed that a somewhat similar tactic was used by the Progressive Conservatives to facilitate Joe Clark becoming prime minister in 1979, with Clark delaying calling parliament back for five months.
Harper himself did not hesitate to prorogue Parliament when he feared Canada’s opposition parties might come together in a bloc to defeat his government in Parliament.
While many might view Harper using such dubious tactics as ludicrous, some in the anti-Harper opposition have been searching for a way to reduce the likelihood of the Conservative Party winning a majority Oct. 19.
The principal way is to persuade anti-Harper voters to accept the necessity of voting strategically in individual ridings where opposition parties’ supporters have a clear possibility of voting together for a candidate who stands a realistic chance of defeating a Conservative candidate.
Although there is considerable doubt whether voters will go along with such a plan, there’s a belief such strategic voting could succeed in some ridings, particularly in British Columbia, where there is considerable support for “anyone but Harper.”
Nevertheless, if the Liberal and NDP leaders continue to insist they won’t form a coalition government following the Oct. 19 vote, they might open themselves to some unwelcome surprises at the hands of Stephen Harper.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator.
harry_sterling@hotmail.ca
