On changed interests

Andrew Potter offers up a few theories to try to make Stephen Harper's take on the Senate look consistent over time. But I'm not sure they make as much as sense as an overall conclusion that his Senate stance - much like many of his other - has in fact changed now that his party holds power.

Keep in mind that until last year, the Senate had been controlled by a Liberal plurality or majority since 1941 - with the exception of the end and aftermath of Brian Mulroney's second term in office, when the PCs too were seen as an enemy of the developing Reform movement. Which means that at every turn, the Senate had served as a barrier looming in the way of what Harper and his political allies hoped to accomplish in politics.

That goes a long way toward explaining the constant drumbeat about a need for reform of some kind, as well as the enmity normally expressed toward the Senate as an institution. And indeed, even as Harper took power in 2006, he publicly portrayed the Senate primarily as an obstacle to his ability to control the country's agenda.

But now, the tables have turned. Harper holds an outright majority in the Senate already, and has four years to keep on appointing his cronies to publicly-funded positions which they can either use to launch future electoral campaigns, or instead occupy for decades to impede any future government's effort to chart a different course for Canada.

So an institution which Harper long had reason to view as a bulwark against his efforts now serves instead as a convenient means of propagating his own movement, even (and maybe especially) where it contradicts the will of the public. Which may explain why Harper's view of the prospect of reforming the Senate might have turned around completely - and why those of us who see the dangers of an unelected chamber being used to subvert democratic decision-making may have to be the ones to take up the cause of demanding change.