Is a big election win a blank cheque to govern?

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's plan to override the Constitution using the notwithstanding clause in order to slash the size of Toronto city council is unusual, but his justification for doing so hasbecomecommonplacein Canadian politics.

"We have a mandate from the people," Ford said earlier this weekas he announced his intention to invoke the controversial clause.

The premierisforging ahead with his plan despite a court ruling the cuts to council are unconstitutional and the fact Ford never campaigned specifically on reducing the size of council.

Like Ford, Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil did not campaign on eliminatingschool boards in the last provincial election, but that's exactly what hisgovernment did last spring. And it did sowith limited debate and an attempt to drive legislation through the House as quickly as possible.

Just eight months prior, the party's election platform promised "a new Liberal government will also complete a full review of the administrative structures of school boards." That's as far as the party seeking re-election waswilling to go in telegraphing that school boards were in its crosshairs.

McNeilonce againdefended the decision to eliminatethe boards Wednesday, using roughly the same argument as Ford.

"If people elect, in a democracy, a group of people to govern, if you're fortunate enough to get a majority, you deliver what you believe is the best government for the citizens of the province and then people get a chance to review you, decide whether you come back or not," he said.

"It was never intended by the architects of our parliamentary system, and by those who participated in the evolutionof the parliamentary system over centuries, that there would be a majority blank cheque," saidTomUrbaniakof Cape Breton University.

"There has never been, in the context of Canadian society, this notion that a majority mandate ...means that everything you care to do is legitimate, without deliberation, no one else has the right to interfere."

Winning an election is just one part of "political legitimacy," he said.

"There's also an expectation [of] deliberation, of changing views and compromising based on that deliberation."

When governing becomes bullying

That sentiment was shared by Jeff MacLeodwho teaches political science at Mount Saint Vincent University.

"An election isn't an end of a conversation politically or policy-wiseit really should be the beginning of one," he said.

MacLeod said governments that adopt a "we win, you lose, we get to do what we want"attitude are authoritarianand represent "the opposite of leadership."

In a word? "It's bullying!"

MacLeodalso disputed the claim any governmenthasthe support of the peoplebecause of a majority mandate.

"Since few governments are ever elected with a majority of the voters, given the plurality system we have,it is spurious to claim that the peopleare supporting anything the government had on its bucket list during the election, or didn't have."

Inthe 2017 election, McNeil'sLiberals took 39.5 per cent of the vote but less than 54 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots. It was the lowest voter turnout ever in the province.

Urbaniak and MacLeodsaida government is free to bring in major policy changes, unanticipated during an election campaign or when platforms were designed, but they also agreed governments should respect what the public and political opponents have to say about those changes.

It may be worth notingthat until 1928, Nova Scotia had its own upper chamber to review the work of the legislature.

"That was meant to be a check on impulsive or authoritarianor overly populous, knee-jerk action by the legislative assembly," saidUrbaniak.

Another check on power in the years following Confederation was the factpoliticians, even those who belonged to political parties, were "loose fish." They had to be won over and unlike today, leaders simply couldn't count on full caucus support.

Read more articles from CBCNova Scotia