There is something puzzlingly about some of the more extreme reactions to the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Harper. Not surprisingly, those who have a stake in the political dogfights in Ottawa have been highly critical. The leaders of the opposition parties have understandably objected to the removal of the Parliamentary stage, upon which they mount some of their best performances before the public eye. They have correctly claimed that this reduces their ability to obtain press attention and to use committees to pursue matters potentially embarrassing to the government. If they had their way, they would preserve their opportunity to do these things by keeping Parliament sitting as long and as often as possible. It is a well known adage of politics that only the opposition benefits politically during Parliamentary sessions. The government is on the defensive and media attention tends to report on matters that involve controversy.

However the claims made by many of the critics of Harper go far beyond this. Many suggest that the opposition parties have a right to continuous sittings of Parliament, irrespective of the decisions made by the Government respecting the management of the Parliamentary calendar. Others claim that prorogation undermines the very principles of democracy. And some suggest that the Prime Minister exceeded his constitutional powers by asking the Governor General to prorogue, and go on to claim that the Governor General should have refused the request.

All of these latter claims are preposterous. The really surprising thing is how many respectable commentators have nevertheless bought into them.

Peter Russell, the supposed objective commentator from the University of Toronto stated: “What this is is a continuation of a very authoritarian approach to government by the current prime minister … this particular prime minister does not want to govern in an accountable democratic manner. It is extremely dangerous”.

Heather Mallick late of the CBC goes even further in the UK Guardian, stating “Canada will not have a House of Commons until March 3. Instantly, we are a part-time democracy, a shabby diminished place packed with angry voiceless citizens whose votes have been rendered meaningless. Harper, that strange vengeful man you will see in February clapping awkwardly as Olympians leap off mountains and shoot past in the luge, has been on a mission since his youth to turn Canada into a pale, watery version of the United States of America…….Harper, frustrated by his repeated failure to achieve more than minority rule, nurses a venom not before seen in Canadian politics.”

And on and on it goes. There is no end to the venom and outrage on editorial pages, blogs and columns by Canada’s self proclaimed elites. Academics who should know better have piled on. Harper, one would think, has mounted a coup in our perfect little democracy.

The reality is much more prosaic and a lot less exciting. Prorogation after a period of Parliamentary sittings is exclusively the right of the Prime Minister to decide upon. Our Parliament is structured to facilitate the execution of government business in accordance with government preferences. This has always been the case. The Governor General is compelled to accept the wishes of the Prime Minister on such matters. That is a fundamental principle. Prorogation now means that there will be a few short weeks delay in the date Parliament will meet. That is hardly the end of democracy or the beginning of a dictatorship. The work of committees will be delayed by a bit, but nothing stops the committees from picking up where they left off on such things as the look into Afghani detainees. Meanwhile MP’s will continue to be free to make their claims and advance their criticism. Yes, the delay in that committee’s work may provide the government with some short term relief, but it is hard to see it as an escape from accountability. And yes, the government will be able to restructure the committees of the Senate consistent with the change in party balance arising from new Senate appointments, but that is what should happen. It would be silly to continue Senate committees that fail to reflect the balance of party membership in the Senate.

All in all, the whole matter is a tempest in a teapot. If the Prime Minister wants to prorogue, he can. He may or may not make that work to his advantage, but to try is just part of the normal game played out in politics. The exaggerated claims and criticisms have done nothing to advance public understanding, and have undermined the credibility of the so-called experts who have made so many of them. Let the system work. Sometimes it will work marginally to the advantage of government and it is hard to fault a government for trying to attain that. But it is not a fundamental breach of democracy, it is not unconstitutional, and it is not that unusual. The really surprising thing is that so many experts seem to find it so upsetting. One wonders whether their objectivity and balance is as sound as one might expect given their positions.