Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper--spiting his opponents in the Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc Quebecois parties--today asked the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, to "prorogue" the Parliament, and she agreed. (Photo below.) The national legislative body therefore is now in suspension and the House of Common doors are locked, and not just until the New Year, as many expected, but until January 26.

If the word "prorogue" is strange to American ears (and unless you studied the public life of England in the Middle Ages, it probably is), don't worry; it is mostly a new idea for most Canadians, too. In fact, it is almost as novel a device (though legal) as the three Canadian opposition parties' scheme (also legal) to close down the Conservative Government that Harper heads and install one of their own. Prorogation, indeed, is Harper's stall tactic to prevent a nearly certain vote of "no confidence" in Parliament by the opposition parties next week. Harper's Conservatives have only 46% of the House seats, the three opposition parties 54%. If they unite, they get to govern.

But now there will be a period of forced Parliamentary hibernation--and all sorts of political speculation. Which leaders and which parties are most likely to crack in the two cold, dark months ahead? Will the uneasy combine of Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois break up as specific difficult issues arise and the three party warlords start contradicting one another? Even before that, will an ambitious insurrection within the Liberal Party undertake the ouster of the current leader, Stephane Dion, the somewhat melancholy former academic whose campaign management floundered in October's national elections? If so, will that intra-party struggle weaken or strengthen the inter-party agreement?

Or will it be the Conservatives who fall apart as the economy continues to weaken and as demands grow for stimulus programs that only a sitting Parliament can authorize? If it is this course that events take then Harper probably will not merely be voted out on January 26 but trampled underfoot.

My unbidden opinion (see yesterday's blog below) was that Harper's best option was not prorogation, but resignation, handing the palace coup makers their supposed dream: power right now. My reasoning was that triumverates are seldom stable. Put Caesar, Pompey and Crassus jointly in charge and before you know it they will be fighting one another. On the other hand, before they achieve power, members of a triumverate have every reason to collaborate amicably and forge a tight union against the incumbent, in this case, Harper. Therefore, if you are Harper and you are being a bit Machiavellian, you might have given your varied opponents (one liberal centrist party, one socialist and one separatist) the very thing they think they wanted, and then watched and waited as they started to plot against one another.

Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives have taken a different tack, however. They are probably betting that the Coalition will melt apart over the holidays or at least in a January thaw. Meanwhile, he will present what he hopes is a popular set of new economic policies to the country.

Well, we'll see. We Americans--as is said in Kentucky--don't have a dog in this fight. But it is curious to watch, nonetheless.