Note to readers: Watch for an interesting bar graph at the bottom of this piece - just a way to celebrate that this is OttawaWatch #200.

This past week provided some real-life examples of what I had promised, in commenting on demonization, deification and their respective roles in the creating of conflict.

We are in the midst of what could become a "coup-alition". True, the present government has backed away from the most contentious provisions in its economic update. But, so far, opposition party leaders seem firm that it is too late to reverse course. The intention remains to try to persuade the governor-general to replace the Conservative government with a de facto Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. (Thus my "coup-alition" word play.)

It became obvious over the weekend that the concept of a coalition to bring down the Conservatives had been in play for some weeks, under the surface. To me, that is not surprising, because I had read and heard of the idea even while the election was on. Often the expression of interest was accompanied by the thought that, given his particular personality and leadership style, the prime minister would, soon on, make the mistake that would give the opposition its opening.

So, the unfolding scenario gives much grist for the argument that, no matter what was to happen in a minority situation, Stephen Harper and his government were already dead in the water, even if they behaved flawlessly.

Demonization

All of which brings us to demonization.

And Scott Reid is the example.

Appearing online on the Globe and Mail website over the weekend was a column by a key Paul Martin advisor when the latter was prime minister. Reid, as some readers might recall, helped to sink the Liberal ship by suggesting that parents getting money from any Conservative child care plan might end up spending it on "beer and pop corn."

This time, Reid begins his commentary "First things first: take him out". Later, he suggests: "Kill him: Kill him dead". The context makes it clear that "him" is Stephen Harper. And it provides some foggy assurance that the death Reid wishes is political, not physical.

That said, Reid's rationale is interesting. The reason is two-fold. Harper is, in his words, "the most dangerous animal in the jungles of parliament". And he is dangerous because of what he would do to the Liberals.

In other words - get him before he gets us.

This is the kind of demonization that breaks out every so often in both the political and religious world. It is based on the idea that if some person, doctrine or ideology is diametrically opposed to one's own, it is demonic in nature.

In the field of conflict studies, including those with some biblical point of reference, the reducing of the demonization factor often leads to the potential for resolving the conflict.

More from the Globe

Having put forward Reid's perspective, we can move on to two Globe and Mail editorials, appearing today (Monday, December 1) and on October 9, just days priority to the October 14 election.

I use the Globe as an example for two reasons:

* Unlike its competitor, the National Post, it is more inclined, on balance, to support the Liberals than the Conservatives. It cannot, by any stretch, be considered as a Harper lap dog.

* The Globe provides the kind of thoughtful analysis that reduces the potential for demonization's worst impacts.

On October 9, the Globe concluded that

If (Harper wins a minority) it will be as a default choice, not a popular choice. Voters generally respect him - and right now, competence trumps the unknown - but if he ever hopes to complete the construction of a governing party of the right and be remembered as more than a middling, minority prime minister, (he) will have to show as much capacity to grow over the next four years as he has over the past four.

That conclusion came at the end of several hundred words of analysis, which began with the point that two anxieties, now in fair measure discounted by his growth as a sitting prime minister, "continue to fuel a passionate anti-Harper streak in Canadian politics."

In the light of that cautious endorsement before the election, I wondered what the Globe would say now, in the middle of the current crisis.

The conclusion of today's editorial notes:

... Despite the events of the past few days, the Conservatives are better positioned to provide stable government than the (coalition) alternative. They should be given another chance to make this Parliament work. If, however, they take that opportunity as licence to continue their pattern of behaviour, setting aside the country's interests in pursuit of their own, the opposition will be justified in defeating them at the next opportunity.

Where do we go from here?

I have used the Globe example rather than advancing my own perspective on the current situation because I sense that my own oft sympathetic observations of the Harper government are perhaps not quite objective enough to satisfy more combative readers.

Let me suggest a couple of options, one not necessarily dependent on the other.

The first might be for the House to suspend or prorogue until after Christmas, so that virtually the first item of business can be a well-considered budget, written with a keen sense of timing with regard to the rolling economic situation. In economic stimulus, moderates of both the right and the left agree that timing is important.

While the resultant "cooling off" effect is in place, there may well be a canvassing of 15 or so opposition MPs who might be seen to be concerned about the upsetting prospect of a "coup-alition".

Such an independent caucus would be committed for a suitable period of time to allow the Conservatives to give necessary economic leadership during the current instability.

Hopefully there would be a level of trust develop between such a caucus and the Harper government. Obviously, the prime minister's seeming mistrust of the present opposition was well-placed, given the evidence that, despite stated willingness to reach out coming from all sides. It has become quite clear that discussions about removing the Tories without an election were being carried on under the surface, without too much restraint from party leaders.

There are some considerable ethical implications in this two-edged situation. An independent - and trustworthy -- caucus might be what is required to give the government the comfort it needs to get us through the next critical months.

And the larger picture?

I believe it is important to try to look to the future by observing where we have been coming from, in the whole area of Canadian political realignment.

Some readers might recall my talking a few weeks ago about the decline of the Liberals and the rise of the conservative parties since the rout of the federal Tories in 1993.

Some friends suggested that I put that information into the form of a graph. Gord Walford, a retired statistician and an influencer in the Public Service Christian Fellowship, was kind enough to create that graph, given my technical lack in that area.

The conclusion of today's OttawaWatch is below the graph.

The points worth noting show the trends from 1993 to 2008.

At the bottom of the chart are the seat performances of the conservative groups - the Reform, Progressive Conservative, Canadian Alliance and Conservative groups.

Then, in the middle, is the seat performance of the Liberals, in pink. In effect, as the Liberals declined from majority position to their present status, the conservatives have risen from under 50 seats to near-majority.

Harper gets a lot of the credit for the Conservative unity and growth, but he did not do it alone. At various times, such names as Preston Manning, Elsie Wayne, Brian Mulroney, Don Mazankowski, Diane Ablonczy, Peter McKay, Chuck Strahl, Stockwell Day and, yes, former Liberal deputy prime minister, John Manley, have contributed to this growth - although not always at the same time. (An interesting bit of trivia: most of those named are people of faith. That might not be a coincidence.)

And deification?

I leave comment on deification to some other time, except to note that all the leaders have feet of clay. Any attempt to announce, as some people of faith do periodically, that their leader is God's anointed, creates more conflict than it resolves.

It might be that these days call for believing people to pray, in quiet places, for our leaders, all the while watching for hopeful signs in surprising places.