All roads lead to Stephen Harper. The subversive strategy at play.

It's perhaps too obvious to require putting into words, but Harper's every action is designed to make him the only choice available to Canadians. How else to explain the enormous contradiction inherent in it being okay for him to install himself as Prime Minister as the head of a coalition of parties involving the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP as he proposed in 2004 but when either Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff contemplate such a move it becomes an option that Harper claims lacks any legitimacy and would lead to dire consequences? Ditto for the two times that Harper prorogued Parliament in order to force an election whose timing benefited him and no one else.

The only thing lacking any legitimacy is Stephen Harper's many arguments and maneuverings that are designed to make him the only game in town, and to ensure that all roads lead to Stephen Harper. Wake up Canada, as this is a serious abrogation of our political system for one man's political gain and power lust. The effect of these various maneuverings by Stephen Harper is too deprive Canadians and the Canadian political system of some very important options that need to be preserved in order for our democracy to be a complete one. Made especially important by the fact that we have five parties at the national level vying for power and not simply two parties (as in the US).

By denying Canadians of the very real and viable option of forming a coalition government, as presently exists in the UK, we are simply according Stephen Harper with more options of his own. That's the sole rational behind his contradictory and hypocritical stance on coalitions. Good if a coalition installs him as Prime Minister and bad if it means installing someone else as Prime Minister. Harper is more likely to remain as Prime Minister in a scenario where he forms another minority government and is not faced with the prospect of losing the confidence of the House early in his term and being replaced by a coalition of parties (as exists in the UK) that is able to command the confidence of the House. By raising the spectre of all the evil that exists in the option known as a coalition government, Stephen Harper is merely helping to advance his call for a majority mandate.

I for one was not impressed when Michael Ignatieff was so quick to swear off the very real and viable option of a forming a coalition government, rather than taking the opportunity to inform Canadians about who the real losers are when such options are denied them. What kind of leadership are we to expect from someone who is so quick to deny Canada from such important options when faced with a bit of head wind from the (inane) media and from an opponent who will use any argument, regardless of how contradictory or hypocritical, in order to ensure that all roads lead to him?

This is how dictators like Stephen Harper operate, by depriving the electorate of real choices that are integral to the system, thereby subverting the system, and diminishing our democratic rights as a consequence by allowing them to rewrite the rules and hoard power for themselves.

Could it be any more obvious? Could it be any more subversive?