OTTAWA - In the space of a few days, Parliament Hill has morphed from being a symbol of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's high-handed contempt for democracy into an emblem of his compassion and concern for the people of Haiti.

The Hill has become a hub of frenzied government activity aimed at speedily alleviating the tragic plight of Haitians devastated by a catastrophic earthquake.

The normally media-averse Harper government has treated journalists to a steady stream of ministerial briefings, announcements of military, humanitarian and financial aid, photo-ops of the prime minister meeting with ministers, military commanders and Haitian-Canadians, making a donation to the Red Cross and coordinating disaster relief in phone calls with world leaders.

The frenetic activity culminated with this statement Friday by a Harper spokesman:

"To show solidarity with the people of Haiti, in a small yet special way, starting tonight the Parliament buildings will be illuminated in Haitian colours."

These would be the same Parliament buildings that Harper summarily shut down on Dec. 30, decreeing that they would not reopen for business until March 3. The same buildings that were featured in Liberal attack ads earlier in the week -- surrounded by a chain link fence plastered with a sign proclaiming the Hill "closed out of self-interest" by Harper.

The irony of the prime minister now bathing those same supposedly shuttered, fenced-off buildings in blue and red spotlights provoked not a peep from opposition politicians who normally seize any opportunity to bash the government. This is a crisis, after all, and politicians are acutely aware that anyone perceived to be trying to exploit it for crass partisan advantage would be crucified.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh quickly retracted an impolitic tweet early in the week suggesting the government hadn't acted quickly enough.

His leader, Michael Ignatieff, later declared: "I want to put the politics aside. We're in front of a disaster of biblical proportions. It's important that all Canadians rally."

Yet altruism and political opportunity are inevitably and inextricably linked when a government is dealing with a calamity of this magnitude.

Doing the right thing can pay political dividends. Doing the wrong thing -- or even doing the right thing but communicating it badly -- can sink a government.

The Martin government's tardy and bumbling response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami helped cement the perception of Paul Martin as an indecisive ditherer.

Harper himself was roundly criticized for his government's confused efforts to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon during a bombardment by Israel in 2006.

Tory insiders say the prime minister learned from that experience not to waste time debating logistical hurdles. This time, within minutes of the quake in Haiti, Harper took charge, ordering an immediate infusion of cash to humanitarian organizations and swift mobilization of military planes, helicopters, ships and disaster relief troops.

Haiti's relative proximity and the Harper government's recent purchase of two mammoth military transport planes helped ensure response to the disaster would be faster than in the past.

And the flood of prime ministerial photo ops and ministers appearing at briefings and in TV interviews, seeing off war ships and welcoming home evacuees helped ensure Canadians would be well aware of everything the government is doing.

"What has been most impressive is that Harper has demonstrated something that he's often criticized for, being decisive and not consulting widely and not deliberating enough," says Queens University political communications expert Jonathan Rose.

"He's used that liability as an asset in this case . . . To me this is a great example of how leaders can turn a negative into a positive."

Alan Middleton, marketing professor at York University's Schulich School of Business, is somewhat less laudatory. He calls the Canadian response so far "acceptable, minimal but not special," given Canada's longtime links to Haiti and in comparison with the massive aid campaign launched by the United States.

And he's skeptical about Harper's motives.

"Of course they are," Middleton says when asked if the Tories are trying to make political hay out of the crisis. "You know that, we all know that."

Still, he adds: "Would you want anything else? At least it gets them focused and doing things. So you've got to go to the humanitarian upside on this one."

Rose doesn't deny there's political benefit to Harper responding swiftly to the crisis and, more importantly, in ensuring that he's being seen to be acting swiftly.

Without casting aspersions on Harper's motives, Rose notes that the timing and handling of the crisis is "very propitious" for the government. It's buried, at least for the time being, controversy over the prime minister's decision to prorogue Parliament and enabled him to dispel any perception that his government is taking an extended vacation.

Still, he says there's also a psychological need during a crisis for people to see their leaders taking charge, showing concern. And the more emotional and visually-compelling the disaster, the greater the need.

Even purely symbolic gestures become important -- something former prime minister Jean Chretien didn't appreciate when he took days to visit ground zero in New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, incurring public wrath.

"Politics on these kinds of things are really in some ways about controlling a spectacle and spectacle can be appearing for ground zero and spectacle can be lighting up the Hill with Haitian colours," says Rose.

"And since those visuals tell a really powerful story, they're actually great tools to use because they are, in the language of communications, they're condensation symbols. They provide lots of information about values and about attitudes and about behaviour."