Yesterday brought us news of a second surprise event in parliamentary democracy in as many months: Australia’s governing party entertained a leadership challenge within its own caucus and replaced its leader — and, in turn, the country’s prime minister.
The leadership challenge came outside of any apparent crisis or election and took less than a day to resolve.
The Associated Press’ Rod McGuirk writes:
Kevin Rudd’s deputy, Julia Gillard, was elected leader in an uncontested vote about 12 hours after she surprised many colleagues by challenging a prime minister who until recently was one of the most popular in modern Australian history.
It also makes her Australia’s first female prime minister.
Of course, the first surprise event came back in May when the highly anticipated election in the United Kingdom — the first in five years — failed to reward either of the leading three parties with a majority.
The surprise continued as David Cameron’s most-seats Conservative Party not only refrained from rushing into power via a minority government (as is common) but succeeded in wooing Nick Clegg’s third-most-seat Liberal Democracy Party into a coalition government over Gordon Brown’s second-most-seat Labour Party.
If a bridge coalition between the UK’s right and left parties over the centrist Labour Party is unprecedented, then Gillard’s successful shock-challenge to Rudd is playing on another level entirely.
COMPARATIVE RELEVANCE TO CANADA
Some are calling Gillard’s surprise move a coup.
It isn’t.
Gillard was installed by her caucus and well within her rights as a sitting MP. More directly, she affected a change in party leadership exclusively through elected party members. It just so happens that her party is currently in power and the title of party leader also comes with the added perque of being prime minister.
A challenge like this is virtually unheard of in Canadian federal politics — where party caucuses are influenced and intimidated by clique factionalism, unelected party officials, advisors, leagacy-laden leaders emeritus, and a wide variety of donors with an even wider variety of interests.
Still, any sitting Canadian MP would be well within their rights to do the same as Gillard.
We often forget this. And we’re often encouraged to forget this.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper would prefer you ignore the fact that the only thing that keeps him prime minister are — not your votes — but his fellow caucus members.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff would rather you ignore it, too — he’d rather you not only overlook the fact that his party is openly whispering about replacing him but that any of his 73 caucus colleagues could attempt it just as easily as Gillard.
Sure, their being replaced in such a way is unlikely.
The point is, they’re both far more disposable then they let on.
Still, it’s nice to know there’s at least one parliamentary democracy out there where MPs know their rights and aren’t afraid to use them.
