British coalition a lesson in compromise and sacrifice
People of Canada rejoice! Eighteen months after Canadians sat mesmerized by America's dazzling new president, we now have a new foreign leader to envy—and a major case of leadership envy to nurse. In fact, Britain's new coalition government is led by not one, but two young, energetic leaders, Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
Next to these two gentlemen, Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton are, well, boring at best. More irritating is the fact that Cameron and Clegg managed to do what Ignatieff's predecessor, Stéphane Dion, and Layton couldn't do—forge a viable coalition that didn't reek of opportunism and self-interest.
One can fault Prime Minister Harper for proroguing Parliament to stop the 2008 "coalition of the selfish." But the difference between Canada's ill-fated marriage of anti-Harper forces and Britain's new partnership is that Cameron's centre-right Tories and Clegg's centre-left Liberal Democrats stand for something (putting Britain's national interest ahead of petty party politics) while the 2008 Canadian Opposition coalition stood against something, namely the Harper government.
Liberals and New Democrats (and even Quebéc separatists) will protest that the not-so-grand coalition wanted to stop Harper's Tories from pursuing a mean-spirited agenda that continues to hurt Canadians. But listening to Cameron and Clegg, one can't help but notice that both leaders and their parties were practicing the art of compromise and sacrifice. Canadians shouldn't hold their breath for their own political leaders to put national interest ahead of party politics.
Compromise and sacrifices are moral concepts that seem out-of-fashion in Canada today. Can anyone see Stephen Harper back down on his ideological agenda—scrapping the federal gun registry, pursuing law-and-order rather than crime prevention—to work with others in Parliament? Would the New Democrats back tough fiscal medicine to get federal spending under control? Could the Liberals even find something to believe in and then sacrifice it for the country's good?
In Britain, that country's new rulers were talking about "overcoming our differences for the good of the whole country" and promising "a new kind of government." Heady stuff.
Cameron's Tories had to back down on some promises near-and-dear to its social conservative bloc known as the Cornerstone Group: tax breaks for married couples, sharp cuts to inheritance taxes and cuts to the National Insurance health premiums. In exchange, the Liberal Democrats backed down on their efforts to bring Britain closer to the European Union, abandoned a proposed "mansion tax" on large homes and scrapped a general amnesty for illegal immigrants as well as plans to mothball Britain's nuclear weapons.
Such acts of compromise make a coalition possible for the long run—five years in Britain's case. Sacrificing election positions while maintaining your core principles is not easy. Cameron may face a revolt from displeased Thatcherites who dream of the former Iron Lady's tight-fisted rule where minimal government in civic life was the rule. Clegg has displeased his leftist members who feel betrayed that their ideological commitments have been watered down.
It's clear that Britain, like Canada, faces tough times of recalibrating its economy and plotting changes to its social systems that meet the needs of today, not the 1980s or some future socialist utopia. This coalition may fail. The ideals of sacrifice and compromise so evident that day when Cameron and Clegg stood side-by-side may give way to self-interest. Certainly Barack Obama has not been able to maintain the enthusiasm for change since his inauguration. But having the courage to try is never wrong
What should Canadians learn from the British election and its aftermath? First, it is possible that leaders can put the good of the country before their own political fortunes. They may be there in Canada's Parliament today, even thought our current leaders clearly don't fit the mold.
Secondly, the voters are never wrong. British voters rejected Gordon Brown's Labour Party because it had run out of ideas and was clearly out-of-touch with the people. But voters also denied Cameron a majority, fearing the Tory agenda would do more harm than good.
Finally, ideals still matter. Faced with the potential wrath of voters should they fail to forge a working relationship (with another election unlikely to produce different results), the Tories and Liberal Democrats swallowed hard and did the right thing.
For Canada, the hopelessness of our politics envelops the country in darkness. Let us hope that principled leaders who love their country more than naked power will eventually step forward.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
