Sep
28
By Jim Gerwing
Here are some ideas we might chew on:
In a two-party system the electoral process of first past the post works out reasonably well. In a multi-party system where more parties are offering credible choices for the electorate, the system breaks down if the desired object is a majority government.
I sincerely hope that Canada will never again have a majority government and that we follow the law in our country, a new law that was broken at the first opportunity by the very party leader who brought in the legislation, for a fixed election date every four years.
The culture of parliament, however, has to change for a minority government to work. Legislation has to be debated, compromises have to be made, cooperation has to be the natural and normal way to get things done.
The people of Canada have spoken loud and clear: we want none of the current leaders or their parties to have a majority. We cannot trust them with that kind of power. So, Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe, stop your political posturing. We want you to work hard for your pet projects, but only is so far as you can convince each other that they are in the best interests of Canadians. Parliamentarians, stop your inane schoolboy wrangling and act like people truly dedicated to this country instead of blindly committed to the narrow interests of your own parties.
We do not want another election this fall, and believe me, we will make any politician pay a big price for foisting it upon us.
If every minority government is doomed to dysfunction, then it is equally true that every majority government is doomed to meaningless debate about legislation, since the majority doesn't need to listen to anyone else. Just witness the government of BC, where the house either doesn't sit at all for long periods or sits only rarely. Opposition ideas are not even considered, nor is input from the larger community sought or considered.
There are members of parliament who have demonstrated great capacity to search for the best legislation for the country. I believe some very good legislation came out of minority federal governments.
If majority governments bring stable government, I think the stable part is more like a pig trough, as both the Liberal and Conservative majority governments have amply proven.
As to Canadians wanting none of the present leaders to have a majority, I stick to my assertion. None of them have gained the confidence of anything even close to resembling a consensus among the population.
There are times when I think the best solution is to ban all political parties, allow no donations above a thousand dollars to any prospective member of parliament, and have those elected assemble as soon as the election is over and choose a presider and cabinet of women and men who are clearly committed to the country as a whole while still representing their own constituency.
Jim Gerwing
Mr. Gerwing's article brings to mind the old saying, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Yes, if all politicians were motivated by sweet reason, altruism, compassion and love of country, minority parliaments would be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, politicians happen to be human beings, subject to all the usual baser instincts. Every minority parliament will therefore be characterized by the dysfunction and posturing that the author eschews.
Mr. Gerwing is also quite wrong in his assertion that the people of Canada want none of the leaders or parties to have a majority. On the contrary, nearly every voter would like his or her chosen party to form a majority government. The current configuration of parliament simply reflects differences in voter politics, not a rejection of majority rule.
Meaningless debate is probably no worse than futile posturing, and at least brings the benefit of stability. In a sense, all Parliamentary debate is meaningless since the real work is accomplished in cabinet and in legislative committees. The public debates are strictly to craft sound bites for media and score points with the folks back home.
You are certainly entitled to your preference for minority government. I would challenge you, however, to find a single voter who would not prefer his or her chosen party to form a majority. The current configuration simply reflects the political differences in the country, not a deep seated rejection of majority rule or even the particular leaders. It is also worth noting that absent Quebec we would already have a Conservative majority government. (308 - 75 = 233 = 117 seats for majority/ CPC current 146 -10 QC seats = 136.) Enthusiasm for minorities in English Canada is not high.
Your proposals for electoral reform contain an element of wishful thinking. Neither political parties nor almost any other kind of association can be banned in a free society. Even if they were, they would soon spring back into existence without the formal trappings. The current donation limit is $5,000. It's hard to see how reducing this to $1,000 would make any material difference. As for the legislature choosing a government, thanks but no thanks. We want to know who the leader is, and make some judgment of his or her character, before entrusting them with the reins of power.