Thursday, October 28, 2004
Exit the Albatross
At no time in Canadian political history has the idea of proportional representation received as much attention as it is now. The fourth largest party in the House of Commons (a party whose caucus, incidentally, numbers exactly the difference between the Liberal caucus and half the House of Commons) lists its adoption as one of its top priorities, not a single political party (including the Liberals and the Bloc Québecois, for whom PR would spell disaster) has the courage to oppose the idea, and the British Columbia "Citizens' Assembly" has set the ball rolling towards electoral reform in general, which is likely at some point to lead to PR unless the present course is reversed.
My opposition to Proportional Representation on the grounds that it kills representative democracy is likely well-known to regular readers of this space (strange breed of masochists that they are), so I shan't harp on it any more at this time. Besides, many with whom I have quarrelled on the idea have cited the attainment of "higher ideals" as justification for the need to move to PR: PR would help the New Democrats gain more power, which would in turn lead to a number of desireable reforms. This argument - PR as the means to an end - is bothersome to me not only because I'm unprepared to accept the existence of ideals higher than the proper representation of a state's citizenry in that state's legislature, but also because it's completely wrongheaded strategically. In this post, I will attempt to establish that this is so, and that so-called "progressives" - myself included - would be best served by the significant weakening of political parties and the corresponding strengthening of independent candidates.
It has always struck me as peculiar that those of us on the left side of the political spectrum should hold "organization", in the political sense, so dear to our collective heart (of *course* we have a collective heart - we do *everything* collectively. You should see us shower). Cursing the influence of "corporations" in the political process, nobody is more thrilled to use them when it suits our purposes. Political parties, unions, not-for-profits - all are corporations, and their lack of profit-seeking does not make them any less so. Claiming that politics should be about people, we simultaneously encourage conformity ("solidarity") over individuality. Politics are (as Roman is fond of pointing out) a team sport.
Okay, so we're flaming hypocrites, but that's a departure from my main point, which is that we're also strategic buffoons. Want evidence? Have a look at the list of people Canadians recently selected as the ten greatest among us to ever live: Fred Banting, Alexander Graham Bell, Don Cherry, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, Wayne Gretzky, John A. MacDonald, Lester Pearson, David Suzuki, and Pierre Trudeau. We'll disregard Banting, Bell, Fox, and Gretzky, since the accomplishments that earned them a place on the list were wholly apolitical (Bell we'll disregard also because he wasn't a Canadian). Of the remainder, all but Cherry are identified primarily with leftist causes - Douglas with Medicare, MacDonald with the railroad (a massive public works project funded at the taxpayer's expense) and the conciliation of different national groups, Pearson with pioneering work in the field of multilateral humanitarian intervention in the world's trouble spots, Suzuki with environmentalism, and Trudeau with the Charter of Rights and official Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. In Cherry's case, I believe he was selected more because of his work on hockey and the style in which he espouses his viewpoints than for the viewpoints themselves. Nobody made it on to that list by balancing budgets or creating a climate conducive to economic growth or introducing stiffer penalties for repeat offenders or even negotiating international trade treaties. Canada, in short, is a country of raving socialists, and yet somehow we've never even managed to push socialists into the role of official federal opposition, let alone government. Ergo, buffoons.
Why have we not managed to convince more than a relative handful of this socialist country's population to vote socialist? I would submit that the major reason is that our political culture is one based on labels. There are plenty of Canadians who believe that the public purse should ensure that everybody has access to equal health care and education, who will willingly pay higher taxes in pursuit of these ideals, who believe in truly equal rights for women, visible minorities, and homosexuals, and who want to see Canada chart a foreign policy based more on altruism than on self-interest, and who will yet recoil at the idea of handing the reigns of government to socialists, or New Democrats, or unionists. Their ideals are in line with ours, but the recoil at the labels affixed to us. And yet, through our insistence on organization and on adopting systems, like PR, that empower political parties at the expense of individual members, we encourage people to vote on the basis of labels. Not one of Trudeau, MacDonald, or Pearson would ever have become Prime Minister of this country if they'd called themselves socialists at the time of their candidacies, and Suzuki and Tommy Douglas couldn't get elected as either Greens or New Democrats in most ridings of this country - as an independent running against other independents, though, all three would be locks.
Want more evidence? Let's look at the recent Edmonton municipal election. Plenty of people who would never dream of voting Conservative, including me, supported Stephen Mandel for mayor. But a Conservative is exactly what Stephen Mandel is. Likewise, plenty of people backed Michael Phair who would never vote New Democrat. Political parties help only weak candidates - to strong ones, they're albatrosses.
Not that the New Democrats should immediately dissolve and all their candidates run as independents - in our current structure, that would be suicide. But the New Democratic Party, as a corporation with considerable influence in the Canadian political process, should work towards its own redundancy, rather than seeking to entrench a body that by its reputation, deserved or otherwise, condemns to defeat Canada's brightest progressives each and every election.
|
At no time in Canadian political history has the idea of proportional representation received as much attention as it is now. The fourth largest party in the House of Commons (a party whose caucus, incidentally, numbers exactly the difference between the Liberal caucus and half the House of Commons) lists its adoption as one of its top priorities, not a single political party (including the Liberals and the Bloc Québecois, for whom PR would spell disaster) has the courage to oppose the idea, and the British Columbia "Citizens' Assembly" has set the ball rolling towards electoral reform in general, which is likely at some point to lead to PR unless the present course is reversed.
My opposition to Proportional Representation on the grounds that it kills representative democracy is likely well-known to regular readers of this space (strange breed of masochists that they are), so I shan't harp on it any more at this time. Besides, many with whom I have quarrelled on the idea have cited the attainment of "higher ideals" as justification for the need to move to PR: PR would help the New Democrats gain more power, which would in turn lead to a number of desireable reforms. This argument - PR as the means to an end - is bothersome to me not only because I'm unprepared to accept the existence of ideals higher than the proper representation of a state's citizenry in that state's legislature, but also because it's completely wrongheaded strategically. In this post, I will attempt to establish that this is so, and that so-called "progressives" - myself included - would be best served by the significant weakening of political parties and the corresponding strengthening of independent candidates.
It has always struck me as peculiar that those of us on the left side of the political spectrum should hold "organization", in the political sense, so dear to our collective heart (of *course* we have a collective heart - we do *everything* collectively. You should see us shower). Cursing the influence of "corporations" in the political process, nobody is more thrilled to use them when it suits our purposes. Political parties, unions, not-for-profits - all are corporations, and their lack of profit-seeking does not make them any less so. Claiming that politics should be about people, we simultaneously encourage conformity ("solidarity") over individuality. Politics are (as Roman is fond of pointing out) a team sport.
Okay, so we're flaming hypocrites, but that's a departure from my main point, which is that we're also strategic buffoons. Want evidence? Have a look at the list of people Canadians recently selected as the ten greatest among us to ever live: Fred Banting, Alexander Graham Bell, Don Cherry, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, Wayne Gretzky, John A. MacDonald, Lester Pearson, David Suzuki, and Pierre Trudeau. We'll disregard Banting, Bell, Fox, and Gretzky, since the accomplishments that earned them a place on the list were wholly apolitical (Bell we'll disregard also because he wasn't a Canadian). Of the remainder, all but Cherry are identified primarily with leftist causes - Douglas with Medicare, MacDonald with the railroad (a massive public works project funded at the taxpayer's expense) and the conciliation of different national groups, Pearson with pioneering work in the field of multilateral humanitarian intervention in the world's trouble spots, Suzuki with environmentalism, and Trudeau with the Charter of Rights and official Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. In Cherry's case, I believe he was selected more because of his work on hockey and the style in which he espouses his viewpoints than for the viewpoints themselves. Nobody made it on to that list by balancing budgets or creating a climate conducive to economic growth or introducing stiffer penalties for repeat offenders or even negotiating international trade treaties. Canada, in short, is a country of raving socialists, and yet somehow we've never even managed to push socialists into the role of official federal opposition, let alone government. Ergo, buffoons.
Why have we not managed to convince more than a relative handful of this socialist country's population to vote socialist? I would submit that the major reason is that our political culture is one based on labels. There are plenty of Canadians who believe that the public purse should ensure that everybody has access to equal health care and education, who will willingly pay higher taxes in pursuit of these ideals, who believe in truly equal rights for women, visible minorities, and homosexuals, and who want to see Canada chart a foreign policy based more on altruism than on self-interest, and who will yet recoil at the idea of handing the reigns of government to socialists, or New Democrats, or unionists. Their ideals are in line with ours, but the recoil at the labels affixed to us. And yet, through our insistence on organization and on adopting systems, like PR, that empower political parties at the expense of individual members, we encourage people to vote on the basis of labels. Not one of Trudeau, MacDonald, or Pearson would ever have become Prime Minister of this country if they'd called themselves socialists at the time of their candidacies, and Suzuki and Tommy Douglas couldn't get elected as either Greens or New Democrats in most ridings of this country - as an independent running against other independents, though, all three would be locks.
Want more evidence? Let's look at the recent Edmonton municipal election. Plenty of people who would never dream of voting Conservative, including me, supported Stephen Mandel for mayor. But a Conservative is exactly what Stephen Mandel is. Likewise, plenty of people backed Michael Phair who would never vote New Democrat. Political parties help only weak candidates - to strong ones, they're albatrosses.
Not that the New Democrats should immediately dissolve and all their candidates run as independents - in our current structure, that would be suicide. But the New Democratic Party, as a corporation with considerable influence in the Canadian political process, should work towards its own redundancy, rather than seeking to entrench a body that by its reputation, deserved or otherwise, condemns to defeat Canada's brightest progressives each and every election.
