On disruption

I've noted before the all-too-likely prospect that Stephen Harper will see no downside to using his unelected Senators to block the will of the House of Commons for years to come. But Michael Behiels goes a step further, theorizing that Harper may see anti-democratic action from the Senate as a deliberate strategy rather than merely a neutral outcome that he'd encourage in order to disempower Canada's elected representatives:

Behiels thinks Harper has a plan up his sleeve: bring so much disrepute to the Senate that Canadians explode in anger, giving him the excuse to hold a referendum on the whether to implement constitutional change to allow for direct election of senators.

In the wake of that referendum, with a mandate for change in hand, Harper would then call a meeting with premiers to push for constitutional amendments, says Behiels.

"This is the long-term game plan. Let's make this thing so disruptive that Canadians are going to say we have to get rid of it. So he's creating a crisis."

Now, I'd think it's more likely that Harper's preference is to push toward a U.S.-style roadblock to government action rather than abolishing the Senate - which may be more difficult if Harper does go as far as Behiels suggests.

But it's well worth asking whether this is just another example of the Cons using their place in power to deliberately damage Canada's democracy. And either way, there's no justification for Harper's combination of broken promises and brazen disdain for the will of elected officials as a matter of anything but raw political calculation.