So, what did we learn?

Not much, apparently.

Our American friends seemed pleased to have a source of political news that didn’t involve rambunctious Republicans or their fickle filibuster. But their coverage was based more on contrast than curiosity.

Keith Olbermann seemed genuinely excited to talk all things parliamentary democracy with his BBC guests but was also keenly aware of his audience’s implied attention span and therefore reluctant to pursue truly complex questions. While Jon Stewart’s half-sincere insistence on the American federal system being superior — U-S-A ! U-S-A ! U-S-A ! — felt more like a question than an assertion.

In America, coverage of foreign events can only be justified by bringing the narrative to rest on some matter of importance for America itself. Of course, that’s less a reflection of their national character than simply one of the luxuries of imperial affluence and therefore perhaps best referred to it as the imperial attention span — where the business of the empire is the only news fit to print.

It’s not exactly something you see in Canada but that doesn’t mean coverage here was any better. And while the American perspective is typical of their own mutual harried relationship with the UK, Canada’s blasé coverage was atypical of a country that has forgotten more about British politics throughout its history than much of the world.

The Globe and Mail‘s Campbell Clark reminded us that:

In six years of minority Parliaments, you would think Canada has seen all the cliffhanger twists. But we haven’t seen this one: two parties actually forming a real coalition with each holding ministerial posts in cabinet.

Which is probably the run-away observation of Canada’s entire coverage and most useful point of departure for all future comparison. But his colleague, John Ibbitson, sets us back with this puzzling statement:

The attempt in 2008 to force a coalition government on the Canadian people was an adolescent effort by the opposition to wield its newfound power. As coalition negotiations in London this week demonstrated, voters expect the party with the most seats to be part of the government.

Which seems to imply that we’ve somehow popularly disabused our Parliament of its representative powers by mandating that all power-sharing possibilities be cleared with the electorate before the election?

That’s now how it works, John.

If there’s anything to learn from this most recent UK election it is that parliaments are only as functional as their members’ willingness to cooperate. And more directly, that even parties adjacent to the centre can bridge their common interests to form a government.

Anyway, here’s the angle that virtually no one in English-Canada picked up on and that is perhaps most relevant to Canada’s peoples-centred framework: David Cameron (fairly Scottish) beat out Gordon Brown (very Scottish) to form a government with Nick Clegg (not Scottish, but Scottish-sounding).

When Prime Minister Cameron arrives in Canada (a place both literally founded by a Scot and with a provincial namesake) for the G8 and G20 meetings next month, he’ll be met by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and members of his obstructionist government, not the multi-party coalition that might have formed a government in 2008 (as was their right) — a government that would have been far more representative of Canada’s own parallel “Scottish situation” in all of its de-federalised complexity.

‘I’ve been managing what they call a hung Parliament for four-and-a-half years now. I think managing one hung Parliament is enough,’ Mr. Harper said in response to a question from Canadian reporters travelling with him in Croatia.

In reality, Harper hasn’t been “managing” anything at all. He is the leader of an obstructionist government that has prorogued Canada’s Parliament twice in as many years.

The first as part of a tantrum when the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and Bloc Québécois threatened to form a coalition government shortly after the 2008 election. And the second late last year because his party apparently needed to devote their undivided attention to the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Running from your problems is not a form of management — something the growing list of scandals, incidents, and alienated civil servants and organizations can attest to.

What Harper should have today said is this:

I wish the all of the newly elected members of British Parliament the best in forming a new government in the coming days, and working together to face the challenges that the people of the United Kingdom have sent them there to address.

Or, at the very least, confined his remarks to hockey.

This news was met with some surprise as Jean has only served a single five-year term out of a possible two. It was widely expected that she’d be asked to continue in her capacity as governor general, as is the established practice, but also considering her unprecedented leniency in granting Harper not one but two prorogations of Parliament in as many years.

Jean came under fire for enabling Harper’s now serial abuse of Parliament but her overall popularity has not eroded. Many Canadians protested the latter suspension of Parliament late last year but the subject of their ire was Harper, not Jean. They may have been displeased with her decision but they did not call for her to resign en masse.

As Harper’s search for a replacement reaches into the coming weeks, Canada’s highest apolitical office is likely to become anything but. Speculation has thus far split between debate over whom Harper might (or should) select, and a broader assessment of the office’s relationship with Canada’s federal political structure.

YOURSELF OR SOMEONE LIKE YOU

The same article from the Star offered a short list of candidates, as vetted by a recent poll, including man-in-motion Rick Hansen, “…John de Chastelain, a former chief of defence staff and ambassador to the United States…and…national Inuit leader Mary Simon…” in descending order of apparent popularity.

Hansen’s rejection of the position (the otherwise misplaced focus of the article) shifted attention to the other candidates, which has since dimmed along with the initial hype.

A second Star article from the same day quoted a source saying that Harper considers the office of governor general to be an “end-of-career posting” which could bode well for either de Chastelain or Simon (in that order), depending on your perspective. However, both the article and source acknowledge that even this is entirely speculative.

So, the short answer is that not even the leading candidates are leading candidates. Harper’s supposed criteria could just as easily apply to any of the three would-be appointees suggested in the poll as it could, say, Preston Manning.

John Ibbitson’s column from last week exploits the apparent failure of the rumour mill to great effect by goading readers into building their own candidate based on language, clothing, geography, gender/ethnicity, ideology, and competence.

Ibbitson’s approach is spirited but flawed. He arrives at the curious suggestion that “[a] really exotic pick this time would be a WASP male” based on the fact that “[t]here hasn’t been one since Roland Michener in the 1970s.” While this might be true in one sense it hardly resonates with the rapidly evolving nature of Canadian society, nor the theme of his recent book, The Polite Revolution (2005) which opens by observing “…that nearly one Canadian in five arrived here from somewhere else…”.

Let’s hope he’s just being flippant and grant him the benefit of the doubt.

Besides, he is right to assert that the next governor general should be bilingual. Jean certainly met that criteria, not to mention the rest of Ibbitson’s list. In fact, given the current lack of candidates to thus far, Jean may very well be at the top of the list to replace herself.

This is part of what makes Harper’s decision to replace her so confusing.

Lawrence Martin’s column from last week, which makes the case for a first peoples’ candidate, is the most insightful argument tabled to date and an interesting counter to Ibbitson’s more fragmented view.

Martin specifically focuses on Simon but his broader point is this: “It’s high time — after 143 years! — that a representative of the first peoples was given the job.” And it’s a difficult point to dismiss. Simon is a possible candidate, yes; but there are others. Canada certainly does not suffer from a lack of “first peoples” leadership, regardless of how little national attention they receive.

JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY IT

Last Thursday the Globe and Mail published an editorial calling on Harper to consult with Canadians on his choice for the next governor general. Specifically, it suggested that he “…establish an apolitical advisory committee representative of Canadian society, a consultative body that would diminish the temptation of partisanship and politically correct gestures” but concluded that he will likely “go it alone” instead.

But what’s more “representative of Canadian society” than Canadian society itself?

Surely not some unelected “apolitical advisory committee” — that’s not only more government by definition but also fundamentally illegitimate.

Surely not some US-style parliamentary committee either, where MPs grill possible appointees and the sum total of all their sins and transgressions — although, I will grant that an open vote in the House of Commons would be legitimate, by contrast, due to the body’s representational nature.

And surely not the current prime minister who is under the populist impression that he is, himself, head of state — or, at least, that Canadians specifically elect a prime minister — and who also just filled a number of Senate vacancies with partisan hacks after saying he wouldn’t.

So, why not just elect the governor general?

That is basically the editorial’s underlying suggestion.

Theoretically, we could do this without upending the political or legal framework of the country. Hell, we could even do it without ditching our actual head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. That is, at least, C.E.S. Frank’s argument in an essay from Friday’s Globe.

Franks does not go as far to suggest that we should elect the governor general; however, he does put forward a persuasive case for why we might, at least, close the gap on the political legitimacy of the office by moving it beyond its colonial roots.

Traditionally, feuds between belligerent, self-important prime ministers and governors general have resulted in a crisis in legitimacy for the latter office, with the former office appealing directly to voters. An elected governor general could fulfill their obligations without fear of reprisal against the office itself.

Protecting the office is particularly important in keeping the governor general’s powers from being appropriated or tread on by belligerent, self-important prime ministers and their burgeoning troupe of unelected staff and consultants.

And it wouldn’t limit the power of the House of Commons either since the prime minister is still head of government. Something an elected Senate (part of the same chamber), by contrast, would most certainly do.

This isn’t a call for a republic but Canadians shouldn’t be afraid of rolling out some of the loopholes in the present federal political system, particularly when they’re a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

NOTE

+ For some reason, the Canadian press hyphenates “governor-general” while the office of the governor general and most other Commonwealth nations do not. I’ve taken sides and I think you should, too.