On the evening of November 30th the opposition in the Canadian Parliament had had enough; Prime Minister Stephen Harper had pushed them too far, and they decided to act. They agreed to a deal that would make much despised Stephane Dion the Prime Minister of Canada in a coalition government between the Liberals and NDP.

The outcry against the coalition has been tremendous, some calling the move undemocratic and unconstitutional. Some accuse the NDP and the Liberals of being power hungry and selfish. Not to mention the ultimately terrible conception of including the Bloc Québecois into the mix. This for many, is against everything that Canada stands for, as rallies are organized to "Stand up for Canada". (The Conservative media machine could really use a new slogan once in awhile here too.) However, it is important to question the nature of these accusations and thereby perhaps justify the coalition government.

Firstly, the call that the Coalition government is undemocratic is absurd. Canadians vote for parties and MPs they do not vote for the Prime minister. (Personally I blame this confusion on Barack Obama and insufficient education on the Canadian political system in our schools.) Nonetheless, on October 14th, Canadians voted for a Conservative MINORITY government, meaning that the Conservatives have more seats than any other political party, not meaning that they have the inherent right to govern. Not only that but only 37% of Canadians voted for the right, the other 63% (including the 8% Green Party supporters) voted for the political left. Therefore, do Canadians not deserve to be governed by the left? In fact, while watching the leaders debates and all-candidates forums in fact the similarity between the left-wing platforms was quite striking; a compromise between them would be highly representative of the majority of Canadians' wills. On October 14th Canadians went to the polls and the majority voted for left wing parties, how is the coalition not democratic in that respect? Furthermore, if after those arguments one still accuses the coalition of being undemocratic, one can turn to the trigger of these events. The reason the coalition was even considered was because of Harper's very own attempt to smother the opposition parties by cutting their funding. There is a reason political parties are funded, and that is to encourage democracy and allow those without means to run and be heard in parliament. Removing that funding is far more undemocratic than a coalition government formed on the basis of preserving the keys to our democracy, that is our parties.

Even more ridiculous that the arguments that the coalition is undemocratic is the argument that the coalition is unconstitutional. Coalition governments are completely within our constitution and with the growing number of parties being represented in the house, are going to become more frequent; I suggest we start getting used to them now. In multi-party systems throughout the world, coalition governments are common. In Sweden for example, the Marxists and the Socialists always form coalition governments. Furthermore, it is important to remember Stephen Harper's 2003 bid to "Unite the Right" where fought for a union of the right wing parties in attempt to gain more seats. Well, not he has also forced a movement to unite the left and both are constitutionally acceptable.

Some are calling the move a power grab. This I can accept, after all this is what politicians do, they contest power. After all proudly stating that he wanted to open parliament in a spirit of cooperation, Harper quickly undermined this by proposing to cut the opposition funding. By doing so, one can only assume that the opposition would reject this. So by considering his government's status as a minority government, why would Harper do such a thing? One can only assume he was hoping for an election, in face even now he is asking for an election. Why would he do this? Well of course it is an ideal time to win a majority before the economic hard times, after all the Liberal Party is without a leader. Is that not a power grab as well?

Finally, I think it is important to point out to Canadians that the Bloc Québecois no longer has a separatist mandate, just a charismatic leader. (They dropped the separatism thing following the Clarity Act) The party strictly seeks to promote Québec's interest, much like Harper protects Alberta's. Furthermore they are not part of the coalition, so I not longer would like to hear that argument.

It is evident that Stephen Harper is unable to govern, or even negotiate with the other MPs. Therefore, I think the coalition deserves at least a chance. If it tanks we will head to the poles, no harm done. After all, do we not tell children who are being bullied on the playground to unite and take down the bully?