Stephen Harper's Senate "reform"

Harper’s 27 appointees to the Senate in the space of less than one year reminds me of how Stalin, as General Party Secretary, stacked communist bureaucracies with his own appointees, which eventually led him to full control of the Politburo. Is it only in Canada that one man can be responsible for more than one quarter of the Senate members in a matter of mere months? A proud record, for sure. The noted scholar Donald J. Savoie used the term “court government” in early 2008 to describe the tone of government in Canada (and Britain) - but I believe this to be a considerable understatement, as it stands today, in our country. Stephen Harper has garnered unprecedented personal power and allegiances, and there is no one to check the authority of this ‘chess player’ (a favoured term of the uncritical news media), save for some opposing pawns on the Internet. In his will, Lenin expressed concern that Stalin had “concentrated an enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution.” Does this not sound familiar to those who remain wary of another constitutional record - the unflattering hiccup known as the prorogued parliament?

Rightfully (but for the wrong reasons), Harper is not going to opt for an elected Senate. He finally realizes, when now in power, that such a body cannot sit subordinate to the House of Commons, not that this worried him too much. If you elect a Senate, how could it be - why should it be - the home of “sober second thought” – or of any thought for that matter? Harper’s solution is to rid himself of any pretensions of non-partisanship in the Senate (in other words, sobriety), offering only his thought – or rather, his one thought: power. How can any man refuse the best of both worlds when seized with such an opportunity – appointing two dozen plus fellow hacks (thereby perpetuating his loyal self without the bother of yet another election), and thereby saving us from the constitutional nightmare of an elected Senate. We now have single-minded (in its truest sense) “reform” of the Senate which borders on a quiet, low-brow and anti-intellectual Revolution of the Upper Chamber which was once considered, for good reason, “Canada’s Think Tank”. Who can call Canada a democracy today?