Integral Politics - Canada/US Elections

We all know we're some distance away from seeing an integral approach to politics manifesting in the real world. But we also know that to get there, the spiral has to shift upward.  So although we don't see any truly integral political system in operation, we can see a few indicators of the spiral shifting here and there.

It would not surprise me if not many people here have been following the Canadian run-up to the elections (other than Canadians themselves, and even some of us have been following the US run more than the Canadian one). But I thought it might be interesting to report on a few of my own observations - one of which, I hope will make people chuckle as it did me.

In contrast to the bi-partisan mode in the USA, over the last few decades we've seen a multi-partisan system emerge in Canada.  What were once the traditional Liberal vs. Conservative parties competing for majority governments (with the NDP functioning as a 2nd opposition), Canada now has five major parties: 1) the 'new' Canadian Conservatives 2) the now somewhat fragmented and disfunctional Liberals 3) the New Democratic Party (who once held blue-collar values but are now hold a more green ideology, 4) the Bloc Quebecois (a Quebec Separatist/Sovereigntist agenda), and 5) now the emerging Green Party (which has a growing voting base of more than 10%).

So we have Amber/Blue/Orangish conservatives, Orange/Green Liberals, a socialist-Green NDP, and another 'deep Green' more environmental/radical Green party, with another Party (the Bloc) that wants to separate from the country (and are allowed representation in this now disfunctional electoral system!)

The current Conservatives are an amalgamation of the old disfunctional Progressive Conservatives who teamed up with the far right-wing Alberta-born Reform party and who have held a minority Government for the past 2.5 yrs. Their division during the mid-90's allowed the Liberals to hold three successive majority governments.  Since the right re-unitied, and in somewhat alignment with the 'blue-shift' hold the Republicans gained in the US (and not to mention some Liberal boon-doggles), the Conservatives were able to emerge strong enough to capture a minority government in the last election.

What is interesting is that all of the other 4 parties are predominantly Liberal/Left-wing (or cover the upper Orange to Green political ideologies).   Collectively they hold the majority of the votes (~ 65% over the past week).  But because this Left/Center vote is now split among 4 parties, it is not unthinkable that we will see successive Conservative minority governments in Canada for some time.  

But is this really a bad thing?   In fact, it may not be.  In my view, although I'm more of a Liberal supporter, like the democrats in the US over the past decade, I think the Liberals really have to get their act together before they should be allowed to govern with a majority again.  Additionally, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper have been doing a fairly good job cleaning up some of the boon-doggles the Liberals left behind. But in order for the Conservatives to advance any of their own platform - they need to barter for parliamentary votes with the other parties.  It's been interesting what happens depending on the issue.  Usually the details of the policy/program/law will reflect some blend of criteria that satisfy both Conservative and Liberals.  In cases when the Liberals oppose, if it is an issue that is good for Quebec, the Bloc will support it, or if it does something for social programs, the NDP are likely to support it, etc..  It hasn't been the cleanest form of politics - sometimes it gets bogged down and nothing gets passed - but this comes with the territory of a minority government.

So in essence, we have a multi-party system that has to find some means of compromise in order for parliament to function and advance new programs/policies, etc.  None of these are '2nd-Tier' per se of course, but it is at least a shift out of the traditional bi-partisan model to a more pluralistic one.  (It should be noted that one of the Green Party's platform promises is to implement proportional voting - but this is likely to not occur for some time).  This multi-partisan, minority government situation does signify a 'structural shift' from a the traditional Amber/Blue-Orange to now include several shades of Green.  This is one of the key indicators of the sprial shifting in my view. But there is another indicator that I find more amusing.

The traditional televised debates this past week saw a few changes in format.  Instead of each leader standing at a podium debating their platform, the debate was held in a round-table setting.  Some are joking that it was a 'roundish-table' - as it turned out to be more like the shape of an egg, with the party leaders awkwardly placed with 3 on one side and 2 on the other, and the moderator at the top of the egg, and an empty space on one side.   Although this seems like a good idea - from the standpoint that it puts all leaders on an even playing field - I didn't like it for the simple reason that the leaders were not able to truly project a 'Vision' they have for their country - in the way a podium style traditionally does where each leader is facing the audience/public with their vision (and not each other).   This setting was more like five policy wonks sitting around having coffee (or for those familiar with the comedy troup Canadian Air Farce - the 4 regulars in Tim Horton's commenting on the days news - oh-yeah, oh-yeah, oh-yeah!).  Or as Ken might put it - an endless green 'sharing circle' - wherein no Leader was provided the chance to highlight their vision and platform, but were rather tasked with answering the questions the moderator and the public threw at them.

This 'roundish-table' setting, combined with the multi-partisan system is truly a green-shift into a pluralistic, no-one is any better than anyone else approach.  And add to it, that the 'Leaders' were reduced to appear more like average Jane or John Does doesn't help.  It worries me.  Leaders must be Leaders.  And they need to be respected and held accountable. There seems to be some kind of 'this is no longer allowed' thing happening.

The funniest part though - was when one question from the public (I am NOT making this up!) asked each Leader to say something nice about the person to their left!!  

Oh Dear!

What exactly are we in for in the coming decades?