The leaders of the three national parties have staked out what each hopes to be become their election campaign’s dominant theme.

Stephen Harper, through his trusted lieutenant Jim Flaherty, fell back on economic management, something in which we are heavily invested (as well as in the repeated public declarations of its success).

Jack Layton, inevitably, appealed to our sense of shame over the exclusion of vulnerable groups from Canada’s reputed economic achievements.

Michael Ignatieff, though, stepping aside from the issues of economic well-being, sent out a sharp warning over the destruction of Canadian democracy under the Harper government.

This political appeal is surprising. It is both abstract and arcane and may not prove to be a durable campaign theme. But it is sensible. Ignatieff is right to claim that key elements of parliamentary democracy have been significantly eroded during the Harper regime and that, as a result, Canadian democracy has been placed at risk.

Liberal democracy is constructed on two underlying principles, the first being the right of the people to choose the nation’s governors and to pass judgment on their administration and policies. The other is to control the dangers that arise from basing political power on the wishes of popular majorities.

From its beginning, the promoters of liberal democracy recognized the risks of majority rule. They knew that when majority support is the only legitimating condition of power, those holding power would ignore constitutional restraints, violate minority rights, abridge basic freedoms, use its power to reward supporters and punish enemies and cling to power beyond their constitutional entitlement.

It was fear of these tendencies of majorities that led to a more complex statecraft, one that imposes checks on political power.

The most obvious check is electoral accountability, secured through timely elections and fair election rules, but there are two other equally essential restraints on power.

The first is the concept of “responsible government.” This means that the government must be accountable to Parliament. It must have the continuing support of Parliament and it must answer to Parliament with respect to its policies and actions. Parliamentary members must have access to those mechanisms that allow them to review the conduct of government — such things as votes on government bills, question period, Speaker’s rulings, administrative and budgetary information, legislative officers (such as the auditor general) who review governmental conduct and legislative committees that scrutinize policies and administration.

Canada’s current experience raises questions over the integrity of responsible government. For instance:

• The government possibly contracted for the silence of one of the parliamentary officers — Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet — and interfered with her work.

• It refused to hold International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda responsible for failing to meet the essential standard of disclosure in dealing with Parliament and its committees.

• It refused to provide parliamentarians with the cost implications of new policies and new legislation defeating Parliament’s ability to hold the government to account.

• It has merged political campaigning with governmental administration thereby gaining partisan advantage at public expense.

These actions are not just bad government, or a source of political embarrassment; they represent an erosion of our constitutional structure.

Equally significantly, the government, through insisting that coalitions are a political pathology, has perverted the principles of responsible government and endangered national political stability.

Responsible government is an essential instrument of democratic control and it depends on full commitment to its values and methods. When these are abridged a vital element of Canadian democracy is lost.

The second mechanism is the rule of law, or constitutionalism. Governments must act according to the laws and the Constitution and be subject to the determinations of an independent judiciary.

We have seen governmental snubbing of the Supreme Court in the handling of the Khadr case, the constitutional ruling ultimately being preserved through the initiative of American prosecutors.

We have also experienced the breach of constitutional convention. Twice prorogation was resorted to in circumstances that are outside its proper constitutional function, once to avoid parliamentary defeat and once to avoid meeting proper parliamentary demands for information. And a senior Canadian court has found that election laws have been violated by the government party.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Some justify abridgements of responsible government and the rule of law by claiming that these faults are cured if a majority of the population approves the government’s actions. But this is precisely the argument that is not available in a liberal democratic state. Constitutional structures designed to preserve liberal democratic principles cannot be waived by majorities.

Such an argument ignores the purposes of constitutional design. We have a complex state precisely because political ambition can so often be too simple and too naked. Losing the core structures of Canadian democracy would mean the defeat of our long-held ambition to be a good state. Ignatieff is telling Canadians something that is important to us.

John Whyte is professor emeritus of law, Queen’s University.