by greencrow0 » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Here's one of the first rational columns I've seen about the Canadian election in the MSM....it's about time!<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060121.wcomment0121/BNStory/Front/">www.theglobeandmail.com/s...ory/Front/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Vote strategically</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>By HENRY MINTZBERG <br><br>Saturday, January 21, 2006 Posted at 1:09 AM EST<br><br>Globe and Mail Update<br><br>"We Canadians have four obvious electoral choices Monday - that's the problem. And a fifth that is not so obvious, but might be the solution.<br>The obvious ones are on the ballot. Put an X next to the party of our choice.<br>We can vote Liberal, for the party that has governed so often because it has probably best represented where most of our political sentiments have been - in the moderate centre.<br>But that might only bring back an old, tired party that needs to be taught a lesson: that its corruption, or at least the arrogance that lay behind it, is the fault of the party, not just of who happened to be in control of the party. It would also put back in place more of those who have botched up the situation in Quebec time after time and still have the gall to present themselves as Canada's saviour. So perhaps the question is: Can we wake up the Liberals and teach them a lesson without teaching Canada a lesson using the devils we don't know? There are three of these. <br> In Quebec, we could bring back the Bloc Québécois. That is certainly what the Liberals deserve. But is it what Quebec deserves, let alone Canada: a marginal party sniping from the sidelines, intent on busting up a country that has given us so much? Happily, some Quebeckers now seem to be realizing this and support for the Bloc is apparently decreasing.<br>That leaves the Conservatives and the NDP. If we want change, we can take our choice, right or left.<br>Up to a few weeks ago, the Conservatives had not been able to get past about 30-per-cent support, perhaps because many Canadians remained suspicious of a party, and its leader, still associated with Alliance and Reform, as well as offering shades of George Bush's America. Things are not exactly going great guns down there, so why would we want them up here?<br>Now the Conservatives seem poised to considerably exceed that figure, largely because their leader has been saying the right things. People desperately want change, and here it is on a silver platter. But is this the change most Canadians want? During elections, all politicians are careful about saying the right things. The devil, however, is in the details, and we only find out about these after elections.<br>The Liberal leader, in contrast, has been running a lousy campaign. But did he run a lousy government? We elect people to govern, not to campaign.<br>As for the NDP, it still seems like a bit of a curiosity, at least at the federal level, with a leader many of us don't know what to make of.<br>So where does all this leave us? Exactly where it has left us over the past year-and-a-half.<br>Unless we get smart or, rather, strategic. Vote not individually but collectively, and carefully. In other words, look beyond the X on that ballot. Those of us who like Canada mostly as it is, but not the Liberal Party mostly as it is, can express our collective mind as follows, at least in ridings where a choice presents itself. (Believe me, I am not going to wrestle the Liberals out of my central Montreal riding with my vote.)<br>What I am referring to are those ridings where the Conservatives and the NDP are close. In six ridings in the last election, the NDP candidate lost to the Conservative by less than 5 percentage points. Had these gone the other way, we might have ended up with a more stable arrangement between the Liberals and the NDP, perhaps even with a formal coalition government.<br>Such a coalition would have represented an outright majority of Canadian voters, 52 per cent in all, including more than 65 per cent in each of the four Atlantic provinces, more than 62 per cent in Ontario, and 55 per cent in B.C. and Manitoba, and 51 per cent in Saskatchewan. Only in Alberta and Quebec, each with a quite different agenda, would this coalition have had less than majority support.<br>Things have, of course, shifted now. Yet add up the weakened support for the Liberals (28 per cent in today'sÖ Globe numbers), with support for the NDP (17 per cent) and you're not so far from a majority; still considerably more than the support for the Conservatives. So, depending on how the votes distribute themselves, such a coalition may still be possible - if some people vote strategically.<br>But are we ready for a coalition government? A coalition government would mean a formal arrangement by two parties to govern together, including the sharing of cabinet posts. While we have not known this in Canada, strictly speaking, it has been common in Europe. Israel is probably the best example, since the coalition of Likud with Labour, while it lasted, led to a major shift in Israeli politics.<br>Would the Liberals and the NDP co-operate in this way? If the Liberals had a plurality and the NDP controlled enough seats to give them a majority, they might have to accept such an arrangement.<br>Bear in mind the other possibility, now perhaps most likely: the Conservatives win a plurality and, with the Bloc, a majority. Sure, the Conservatives would never enter into a coalition with the Bloc. But they would want to govern, and the Bloc would be more than happy to keep them in power. What better outcome for a Quebec facing a referendum?<br>A Liberal-NDP coalition could produce the kind of government that most Canadians probably want, while giving the Liberals the kind of message most Canadians feel they need. At the same time, it would avoid a repeat of the last election, or else having to live with a political philosophy that probably a clear majority of Canadians see as failing in the United States.<br>It could even put the NDP where it can do the most good, and little harm. In this regard, bear one word in mind: medicare. Most of us cherish this system for what it says about our democracy, even if we never cease to complain about it. We have medicare thanks to the fact that the Liberal Party in the 1960s was able to govern only with the support of the NDP - for two-and-a-half years, in fact. Bear in mind, too, that the Liberal government fell in November because, claimed the NDP leader, it was not doing enough to protect medicare from privatization.<br>So let me suggest that if you care about the Canada you have, take a good look at your riding. Then vote, not for the leader you want, not for the party you want, but for the country you want."<br><br>Henry Mintzberg is Cleghorn Professor in the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
