Anyone who seldom follows politics, follows politics occasionally, or even someone who gets a lot of news for few sources would find the question “Would Harper and his Conservatives prefer a dictatorship?” be absurd, insulting and disgraceful. The notion that a Canadian politician – whether they be left or right leaning – want a type of power that is unfamiliar to modern liberal Canadian democracy would dissuade many people. It insults their sensibilities and perception, and would come off as “radical”. Insulting rather than substantiated, as it’s so ridiculous.
Yet, there’s sincerely a case to be made – through empirical evidence, reason and – that Harper and his Conservatives have a preference for dictoral-level power. Before I get started on that, this is by no means to say that all Conservatives want a despot (certainly not) and that all Conservative MPs are supporters of some sort of undemocratic and anti-procedural rule.
Is it Harper alone? Plausibly not, the top executives (the Cabinet ministers) in the Conservative party absolutely have a role to play, even if some of them are tools.
Personal accounts aren’t my favourite source, and often times are a source that are distasteful and impertinent. Not inherently immaterial to a case being made, though. There’s fair cries to be made about personal attacks and accusations alone – without demonstrablable or historic evidence to back it up. To make the Harper and the top-guns a fan of rule-by-edict I think it’s appropriate to start with the personal accounts of the tight autocratic and authoritative grip Harper has on his party. There’s much evidence that Harper is a tight controller, for example the tight media control during his minority government where nearly everything from every member was pre-screened or during the 2011 election when there was a 5 question limit per day for the media. There’s also a whole book devoted to analyizing the unprecedented level of control Steven Harper has employed in his party: Harperland (which, for example details that the Conservatives humored a plan to force the Governor General – Michaelle Jean – from office if she didn’t allow the Conservatives to prorogue during 2008). Not to mention that Harper prorogued a couple times when the going got tough by the opposition during his minority.
The 2011 election was called partly due to the fact the Conservative were the first government in history to be ruled in contempt or Parliament, and subsequently…
It gets worse. Remember, those things previously mentioned were just during his minority, there’s far more dubious and blatant tactics imposed under his majority. The Prime Minister’s power during a majority is near-dictoral on its own, so you can imagine. Debates are being limited, bills are being rammed through quickly without regard for typical procedure, watchdog groups are getting neglected and ignored, committees are being limited†, etc. Legislatively, the Conservatives can pretty much get away with whatever they want. The party can whip votes, which means they can threaten party members if they don’t vote the way the Rulers want. Whipping is decorum in Parliament; it’s ingrained in the culture. Effective control over whatever they want, legislatively. They have effective majoritarian control, but really, the control really comes from the authoritative executives of the parties, which is a smaller percent. Probably speaking, you can trace the autocratic rule and whip back to one man: the Prime Minister.
They absolutely do not respond nicely, honestly or fairly to opposition or dissent. Remember, Harper prorogued when the opposition parties planned to team up for a non-confidence motion, and another time he even called a whole election when the opposition tried to topple the government (in violation of a flawed, flawed law his party recently passed)!
Next thing to oppose: the judicial system that has continuously got in the way of the Conservative “mandate”. Again, again, and again. The justice system and judicial independence has been such a nuisance that the Conservatives have responded with maliciousness and contempt to the idea of a court contradicting them, which is functionally viciousness towards judicial independence and constitutional rules*. Immigration Minister Jason Kennedy launched a verbal denouncement about the independent courts ruling against a Conservative policy, and even worse, the Conservatives actually requested that a judge come to Parliament to be questioned and made to justify a specific ruling involving the CBC (which we know the Conservatives don’t like).
The CPC has effective, complete and practical control of procedural affairs in the legislature, meaning, they can pass whatever they want at a speed atypical to Parliament-as-usual, while dismissing and ignoring opposition – they have a majority, opposition are immaterial. They can pass what they want, but not if the court has to say anything, and that’s a problem for them. That’s why they respond violently and distastefully to the rule of law. The courts get in their way of their grand scheme.
Which, directly and aptly, brings us back to the question: Would Harper and his Conservatives prefer a dictatorship? They respond and behave in ways that certainly suggest they would like to have the very little restraints to what they currently have. Relatedly, at the same time, they’re doing a lot so they can bypass the – albeit weak – Parliamentary procedures and norms that limit them.
A dictatorship? I don’t think it’s unintelligent to engage that possibility, because there’s absolutely evidence to suggest more power and less accountability is something the Conservatives want.
Calling Steven Harper a dictator would be false. Suggesting that’s the way Conservatives are acting, and that’s the way the top Conservatives want to act is intellectually and evidently viable.
*Which, interestingly and pertinently enough, was a few of the problems with legislation that has been challenged in court: unconstitutionality. The Conservatives seem to have little regard for our Charter rights when it’s in violation of what they want.
† I think a quote from Elizabeth May says it best:
