It seems Stephen Harper, our not-so-benign dictator, can't stand Canada's constitutional democracy. He is fed up with Parliament's restrictions on the almost unlimited power of his office and his executive.

Harper has, again, spoken with the Governor General and requested the prorogation of Parliament, this time until he is ready to bring down his government's budget in early March 2010.

It seems Harper is determined to attend the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver without having to face constant criticism from those pesky and "disloyal" opposition parties and Liberal senators. Best to put Parliament on ice.

After the budget, I am certain Harper will then pay the GG another visit requesting that Michaëlle Jean drop the writ for yet another election, the third election since he took office in 2006. And this from a prime minister who brought in a fixed-election-date law that he will then have broken twice.

In 1997 Stephen Harper and Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan published a long article titled "Our benign dictatorship" on a U.S. blog site called A Step to the Right. Harper, disillusioned with Preston Manning's weak leadership style and the Reform party's failure to gain traction with increasing numbers of conservative-minded Canadian voters, had resigned as an MP to take on the presidency of the National Citizens Coalition.

Harper and Flanagan, in their desperate search for a politically successful conservative party, lashed out at successive Liberal governments' seemingly endless benign dictatorship over Parliament and the Ottawa bureaucracy. Their contention was: "Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead, in something little better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system. Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society."

Irony of ironies, their critique can and should now be thrown back into their faces. Prime Minister Harper is challenging the constitutional powers of Parliament by systematically denying MPs access to uncensored papers and documents, as well as the MPs' rights to call any and all persons to testify before parliamentary committees.

It is becoming patently obvious Harper now presides over a minority government that can all-too-readily be characterized as a not-so-benign dictatorship. Harper successfully exploits the first-past-the-post electoral system -- which he and Flanagan denounced as immature -- and the ideological and political divisions within the opposition parties, to impose his unflinching will on his cabinet, caucus, and what he characterizes as an utterly dysfunctional House of Commons, one made so by the government itself. With his appointment of yet more Conservatives to the Senate, Harper will exercise full and unfettered power over Parliament, a power which he will readily use to cow the judicial branch of government with his so-called tough-on-crime legislation.

In late 2008, Harper bullied a weak and badly informed Governor General into granting him a prorogation. Several constitutional scholars have declared his reckless but highly effective request unconstitutional.

Now he's doing it again. Why? Harper wants to ensure that his appointment of Conservative senators goes into effect immediately. And, just as importantly, he wants to bring quick closure to the work of the parliamentary committee, supported by a growing public outcry, that is investigating his government's handling of the Afghan prisoners of war affair. Indeed, it is clear that Harper will engage opposition MPs, senators and Canadian citizens in a constitutional war over the prerogatives of Parliament, a war that he and his cabinet are determined to win at virtually any price to our constitutional democracy and its hallowed institutions.

Harper has maligned several very senior and very competent bureaucrats who dared to question, criticize, or oppose his government's questionable policies. These include former Military Police Complaints Commission chairman Peter Tinsley, RCMP complaints commission chairman Paul Kennedy, former Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand, and former Immigration and Refugee Board chairman Jean-Guy Fleury, to name only the best known.

The most recent casualty in Harper's dirty war against his political enemies is evident in his government's blatant attempts to destroy of reputation of former diplomat Richard Colvin. Why? A courageous Mr. Colvin, much to his credit, revealed the full import of the Harper government's questionable policy pertaining to the treatment of Afghan prisoners of war taken by the Canadian Forces.

Following cabinet's directives, these PoWs were handed over unconditionally to the Afghan National Army and police without oversight and, some witnesses argue, with full knowledge that they would be brutally tortured. Now Harper rejects all reasonable requests for a formal inquiry and castigates his critics, including Canadian citizens who denounce his policy in this matter, as anti-Canadian Taliban sympathizers.

Harper's continued use of such bold, provocative and intimidating tactics proves that he is morally convinced that the end -- unfettered power for his Conservative party and government and the wholesale destruction of the centrist Liberal party -- justifies the means.

Canadians must encourage their parliamentarians to fight for their rights in order to ensure the preservation and health of Canada's constitutional democracy. Harper and his executive are not above the Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. The guarantors of our Constitution -- the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and Canadian citizens, have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. If the legislative branch is rendered powerless by Harper's executive branch, Canadians have no choice but to defend their Constitution by taking their struggle to the Supreme Court of Canada.

If the Supreme Court fails to defend the rights of Parliament and Canadians, then every Canadian has the responsibility to exercise his/her full sovereignty via the ballot box.

Michael D. Behiels is University Research Chair of Canadian Federalism and Constitutional Studies at the University of Ottawa.