What
a better way to restart The Fifth Column than by a treatise on how to
make our democracy actually democratic. Hopefully this will be the
first posting in a newly regenerated Fifth Column.
I write this at a time when there are so many examples of democracy
failing us from the “republic” to the south to our own provincial
government in Ontario. Much of the emphasis has been on our First
Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) electoral system but
the problem goes much deeper than that.
Democracy
Defined
But what is “democracy”. Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent
definition here:
Democracy (
Greek:
δημοκρατία dēmokratía,
literally "rule by people"), in modern usage, has three
senses—all for a system of government where the citizens exercise
power by
voting. In
a
direct
democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote
directly on each issue. In a
representative
democracy the citizens elect representatives from among
themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such
as a
legislature.
In a
constitutional
democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the
framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits
the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment
by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or
freedom of association.
Direct
Democracy
Let us first dismiss the idea of a direct democracy, not just because
it can too easily become the tyranny of the majority but because
modern government is too complex for us to all have the expertise and
knowledge required to govern our societies while maintaining our
normal lives. That is to say governing has become a full time job if
one wants to make rational informed decisions. Thus we have invented
representative democracy where we chose from among ourselves those we
trust to have the wisdom to make judgments in our best interests,
usually those are people that share our philosophical approach to
society. I fear, in this day and age direct democracy, such as a
system of online voting on individual issues (similar to the
“initiatives” used a great deal in the aforementioned republic to
the south), would turn voting into shopping where the best marketing
campaign wins.
Representative
Democracy
Choosing representatives that are accountable to us and represent the
views of all of the voters, not just the majority, to meet and debate
and make laws is what distinguishes democracy from electing a
dictator every four years, which is what the present state of our
democracy appears to be moving towards.
Public
Participation
So we have our first big problem. Democracy requires the
participation of all the people to work. Just looking at voting
statistics, never mind greater participation in the political process
such as choosing candidates and influencing political parties
policies. We have barely over a majority of citizens participating.
Adding the fact that the wealthy and privileged have a greater
participation rate, not to mention greater political influence, than
the poor and vulnerable in our society and we can see that our
democracy is not truly representative.
So how do we increase the participation of the public in the
political process. We have to look first at what is suppressing it,
and to that I see a conspiracy of sorts, not a conspiracy of secret
meetings and plots but a conspiracy of shared interests on behalf of
the ruling class that control our media that influences public
opinion. There is a concerted effort to turn government and
politicians into an evil them and taxes into our money that they take
from us. There is a concerted effort to distance the people from
their government and turn it into the enemy. Ironically that allows
the “ruling classes” to take control of it and make that claim
come true while discouraging the general population from becoming
engaged and involved in evil politics.
Government
is the People
The truth is quite simple. Government is how the people as a whole
make collective decisions for the common good and taxes are how we
spend our money collectively for the common good. It is your
government and your money. Don't let them convince you there is
something evil about it. It is your right and your responsibility to
participate.
First
Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) Electoral System
The other big factor discouraging public participation is that many
feel that with our First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality)
electoral system their votes do not count, that they do not help
determine the composition of the legislature if they do not vote for
the winning candidate, or they feel forced to vote strategically
against the candidate (or party) they least favour rather than for
the candidate (or party) they prefer.
Political
Parties
So let us talk about political parties. Political parties have become
the way that we elect our representatives, at least at the federal
and provincial level. There have been exceptions of independent MPs
or MPPs, but in most of those cases they have been individuals who
were elected as a member of a party and then left it.
Political parties allow individuals with similar ideas to come
together to select candidates to seek election on policies agreed to
by the party members. They also allow elected members with similar
ideas and policies to caucus and work together in the legislature.
And not of least importance they finance election campaigns so
candidates do not have to be wealthy in order to run for office.
Political parties are what makes modern democracy work but in many
ways they are it's biggest problem.
Back in my day, when I was politically active, political parties were
run by party activists, the ones who attended meetings, canvassed
during elections, called voters and put up signs. These were the
people that voted for the parties policies, chose the candidates and
elected the leaders.
Nowadays political parties have decided that it is expedient to use
nomination meetings and leadership votes as a way to recruit new
members. Whoever can recruit the most new members tends to win
nomination votes and leadership candidates that can sign up the most
new members tend to win leadership contests. It is no longer long
term members choosing party candidates and leaders but new members
that tend to make the difference when it comes to these decisions.
And during election campaigns the policy is not taken from the party
policy book but dictated by the leader.
The
Loss of Responsible Government and the Cult of the Leader
We are supposed to be a Westminster style Parliamentary government
with responsible government. Our Prime Ministers and Cabinets are
supposed to be responsible to and accountable to the elected
legislatures and can only hold power when they retain the confidence
of the elected MPs (or MPPs) and they must answer to them with in the
legislature, through such means (but not exclusively) as a daily
question period.
However the power of not only individual MPs but also of Cabinet has
been decreasing ever since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called MPs
nobodies off of Parliament Hill and started centralizing power in the
Prime Minister's Office. This practice was extended by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper and taken to new heights by Ontario Premier Doug Ford,
whose caucus and Cabinet seems extremely reluctant to put any form of
common sense restraint on his exercise of power.
So we have an Ontario Premier who is only in power because of the
votes of new members signed up by the anti-abortion/anti-sex ed lobby
to support their pet candidate who transferred her support to Ford
which tipped the balance of support to him. He did not originally
have the support of the majority of the Tory caucus or a majority of
long term Ontario PC members. Yet now he seems to rule by decree with
neither his cabinet nor caucus willing to exercise their
constitutional role of actually governing.
The
Effect of the First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality)
Electoral System and The Power of Party Leaders
But this, of course is only an extreme case. The more routine
situation is for a party to gain a majority of 60% of the seats of
the legislature with 40% of the total votes. It needs to be noted
these are votes cast for individual members in different
constituencies. However most voters are voting for the party, if not
the leader, rather than the individual MP or MPP.
This leads to one party with 100% of the power and with that 100% of
the power more likely than not to be exercised by the leader, Prime
Minister or Premier.
It is not only the sense of fealty that individual MPs (or MPPs) feel
to the leader that gives him power but party leaders' powers start
with a veto over who can be nominated as a candidate and extend to
allotment of question period time and committee memberships and
critics roles, and paid positions as Cabinet Ministers and
Parliamentary Secretaries for Prime Ministers and Premiers, not to
mention caucus membership. No wonder few MPs or MPPs go against the
leader.
Electoral
Reform, Mixed Member Proportional (MPP) and the Power of Parties and
Leaders.
There is a way to eliminate the absolute power of parties elected
with a minority of votes and
the absolute power of their leaders while electing a legislature that
reflects the will of the voters. It is called Mixed Member
Proportional or MMP.
Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent definition here:
Mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation
is a mixed
electoral system in which voters get two votes: one to decide the
representative
for their single-seat constituency,
and one for a political party. Seats in the legislature are filled
firstly by the successful constituency candidates, and secondly, by
party candidates based on the percentage of nationwide or region-wide
votes that each party received.
Canada is not a two-party state. We have a wider variety of political
views than that and a reasonable number of political parties
expressing them. The main effect of a proportional representation
system is that the make-up of the legislature actually reflects views
of the voters and no party gains a majority of the seats with a
minority of votes and and no leader has absolute power. The
government must actually be responsible and accountable to the
legislature. Critics say this is inefficient and a bad thing. But if
efficiency was our goal for government we would not be looking at a
democracy at all.
The fact that a government must be responsible to legislators from
other parties means its own caucus members will expect the party and
leader to be responsible to them also. Indeed there is not one
governing party but a governing legislature as it should be in a
democracy. Practice meets theory.
How would this work in practice. Federally I would propose a
Parliament of 300 members elected as they are now from individual
constituencies using the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system and 100
members allocated proportionally so the make-up of the legislature
reflects the voters party vote preferences. Each voter would have a
vote for an MP representing their constituency and a vote indicating
their party preference.
The proportional representatives would come from party lists known to
voters ahead of time. To ensure greater democratic representation
voters could be given the option to rate the names on their party's
list preferentially and that would be used to select the priority in
which the proportional members are selected from the lists.
Both constituency candidates and party list candidates must be chosen
by a democratic process and not just selected by the party leader,
nor should the leader have an undemocratic veto over the candidates
chosen by this democratic process.
To those concerned about the increased size of the House of Commons
and greater number of politicians I would also eliminate the Senate
so that overall their would be fewer federal politicians than there
are now.
Fringe
Parties and Proportional Representation
One of the criticisms of proportional representation is that it
empowers fringe parties, either of the frivolous kind or more
dangerously those espousing bigotry and hate, providing them with a
voice in the House of Commons (or provincial legislatures).
The Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
provides that its provisions are not absolute
1.The
Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society.
The same principle can
be applied to the electoral system and the concept of proportional
representation. We can build provisions into the system to prevent
the empowerment of frivolous or hateful fringe parties. The most
likely provision being a requirement that parties receive at least
5% of the popular vote before they receive representation under the
proportional representation portion of Mixed Member Proportional
(MMP).
Parliamentary
Reforms
If
we want to make party leaders, and Prime Ministers and Premiers,
accountable to Parliament and the Legislature we have to decrease
the powers party leaders have over individual MPs and MPPs. We can
start with eliminating their control over question period access and
committee appointments by making them based on seniority (but still
distributed by party according to percentage of members that would
now be based on popular vote) and having that administered by the
Clerks at the Table. Party critics appointments should be determined
by a democratic process within caucus, not simply by the leader.
Also only a vote of caucus should be able to expel members from a
party caucus, not the dictatorial power of a party leader.
And most importantly party leaders (including Prime Ministers and
Premiers) should not be determined in a dubious process by a small
number of newly recruited party members but chosen by the people's
elected representatives, the members of their Parliamentary or
Legislative caucus and be accountable to them. With this process the
Parliamentary and government leaders are not determined till after
the election by the people's chosen representatives. This puts more
emphasis on the people we actually vote for, no longer leaving them
as a second thought as we vote according to party leaders. While this
will perhaps require a great deal of political will it puts the
representative and responsible back in our democratic system.
And of course Prime Ministers and Premiers (and their Cabinets) must
also retain the confidence of a majority of members of The House of
Commons or provincial legislature.
The House of Commons (and legislatures) should also establish a
review of all parliamentary rules aimed at ensuring the role of the
democratically elected members are strengthened and enhanced.
These proposed electoral and Parliamentary reforms are designed to
ensure that we have a truly representative democracy and not simply a
process to elect a dictator every four years.
Municipal
Elections and Preferential (aka Ranked Ballot) Voting
Some may have noticed that I have not yet written about preferential
or ranked ballot voting where voters list their choices in order of
preference, 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice etc. The main advantage of such a
system is that it prevents the election of the candidate disliked by
the most voters from being elected, as often happens with the First
Past The Post system. But it depends on voters second and third
choices to elect the winner and can, and likely will, result in an
even greater discrepancy between the number of MPs or MPPs elected
per party and the popular vote (according to first choices) received
by each party.
This of course is why it was Justin Trudeau's choice for electoral
reform. Liberals see themselves as a centrist party and everybody's
second choice. They believe preferential voting would likely ensure
them easy victory in every election and even more dominance in the
House of Commons and power for their leader. When it became clear
that federal electoral reform was not likely to take that form they
quickly abandoned their promise of a new electoral system for the
next election.
But there is a place for preferential voting, and that is where
parties are not involved, as in most municipal elections in this
country.
Without parties competing municipal elections tend to be about the
popularity of the incumbent. The other thing about municipal politics
is that a large part of the job of a councillor is considered to be
about participating in community events and being out and about in
the community meeting constituents. In other words, incumbents are
paid to campaign for the next election as part of their job.
Defeating an incumbent is very difficult. Even when most voters want
to throw out the incumbent their votes are usually divided among
several candidates. Preferential ballots allow in effect, holding
simultaneous run-off elections until one challenger is left competing
against the incumbent thus somewhat levelling the playing field where
incumbents have so many advantages.
So I would certainly endorse preferential or ranked ballot voting
for municipal elections.
