Andrew Coyne, Canadian poltical writer, has a piece in the New York Times:
Published 2 years, 10 months ago…attempts to explain the significance of this election to the Americans. Included are such intricacies as the meaning of minority governments, the nature and longevity of the Liberals’ dynastic rule, the particular history of the last 12 years of one-party government, the scandals and internal rivalries, the rise and fall of Paul Martin, the reunification of the right and the continuing divisions within (libertarians v social conservatives, radical reformers vs moderates), plus a short sketch of Stephen Harper, his major policy ambitions, and the incrementalist approach he adopted for this campaign, whose basic themes are briefly recapitulated.
Then, in the second half … I describe his immediate strategic objective — recasting Canadian politics as a functioning two-party system — and the major institutional and political reforms this will require.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Thank you for posting this. I have been following your elections to the best of my limited ability to understand - I am glad to hear that your citizenry has decided that now is time for a change. I only wish that others in the USA would pay a bit more attention to elections in Canada and Mexico, as eventually policy in our neighbors is bound to affect us.
There is a huge streak of provincialism in the USA. I have noticed that inhabitants of the various regions (Northeast, Southwest, etc) also have local provincialisms and a huge attitude of internalized superiority. I can only hope that eventually that will change.
We do need local control on local issues, but we also need to be aware that we live in a big world!
Restore a functioning two-party system? Has Coyne forgotten that there are more than two parties in Canadian politics. And really it wasn’t a one-party system that was the problem–it was the consolidation of power in the PMO that has been happening for 30 years. Canadian Prime Ministers do not have the same role/power as US Presidents, at least not in theory. WE shall see whether Harper puts some of the power back into the House of Commons, which is where it is meant to be.
This is great information. I have learned so much from messages directly from The Holy Spirit on The Holy Inheritance blog. It seems the Holy Spirit wants voluntarily funded government rather than forced socialism. It seems there is no spiritual value if a choice is not made voluntarily.
I agree systemic changes are long overdue.
Coyne is writing to a US audience, they know little to nothing about us, nor do they care.
Canada is cliches.
It is foreign to many US readers that we don’t have a PM with presidental powers or an elected Senate. It is foreign to our US friends that in a minority government more than one party takes down the lead party. A parliament is pondered in republic terminology.
Look at some the chatter here over the last few years from some US readers.
Conservative. Good.
Liberal. Bad. Anti American.
NDP. Socialist/Communist.
BQ. Who the heck is that?
Green. Tree hugging crack pots.
Independents. Fools.
Christian Heritage Party. About time.
Political nuances are illusive to most Canadians, let alone many readers of the New York Times or our blogs.
I doubt our American friends understand the power the PM’s office has gathered over the last generation. Most Canadians don’t.
Consider the audience Coyne addressed.
Consider the issues Frank McKenna and the embassy staff have stepped toward to confront and how they’ve had to change traditional approach.
Not a perfect article by any stretch of the imagination, but we citizens are talking, I want to listen and I hope we talk more.
I’m thankful for that small mercy.:^)