Some Thoughts on Democratic Reform
Having spent some time exploring through the discussions at the Facebook page Canadians Against Proroguing Government I have noticed many of the discussions have centered around the participants view on democratic reform. In view of Harper’s rather disturbing abuse of our parliamentary system, this is pretty understandable.
In the other Westminster style parliamentary systems throughout the world, no evidence has been found of abuse equalling what Harper has carried out with impunity. It appears for many Canadians that has been a wake up call to them to pay attention to what our governments are doing and excess liberties a Prime Minister takes.
It has been interesting reading some of the opinions and ideas expressed on the CAPP page about democratic reform. It has sparked me to think through my own opinions on the subject.
Education
Yes, education is top on my list. The majority of people I’ve spoken to tell me they didn’t receive any education in how our government runs when they were in school unless they chose to take a course in high school. My American friends tell me a half year Civics course is mandatory in the first year of high school. That’s an idea which I believe has merit.
One element which has allowed Harper to abuse our democratic process is his ability to distort perceptions with the public. Let’s use last year’s prorogation as an example.
Most Canadians aren’t aware we don’t directly elect the government, we elect a Parliament. Yes, we send 308 MPs to Parliament and one of those MPs becomes the Prime Minister because his party received the most seats in Parliament. The Prime Minister leads the Government, the rest of the seats become the Opposition with the largest of those being the Official Opposition.
So, in the fall of 2008 Canadians elected a Parliament which allowed Harper to form a minority government. The number of seats his party attained was not greater than the total seats held by the Opposition. Harper was able to lead the Government side of Parliament only as long as he was able to hold the confidence of the Opposition side of the House that he was fit to govern.
When his government presented an economic statement which continued to ignore the plight of Canadians from a deepening recession and then added the poison pill of trying to withdraw government subsidies for the parties which make up our Parliament the Opposition reacted in rare solidarity. They reached an agreement on a coalition to govern with rather than plunge the country into another election. They then agreed to call for a motion of non-confidence at the first opportunity.
Now, I’m not going to get into whether the makeup of the coalition was good or bad, that’s another argument. Harper took advantage of the fact most Canadians didn’t understand how Parliament functions within the context of a minority government and framed the coalition as ‘an illegal coup’, ‘undemocratic’ and ‘theft of Canadian’s votes’. It was non of those things, in fact it was Parliament doing their job. It would have fallen to Canadians to pass judgment when we voted next.
Had Canadians understood how Parliament works, they would have seen Harper as the deceiver he is at that point.
Elections & Electoral Boundaries
I have in the past expressed some frustration at only one vote to show my pleasure or displeasure towards the party and/or the leader. Having said that for the most part, I’m okay with staying with the first past the post system of elections we currently have. If a candidate for any party can’t convince the majority of the voters in a riding to cast their vote in his/her favour, I don’t want that person claiming to represent me in Parliament.
The distribution of ridings is what becomes more important to me. There needs to be some sort of balance in the amount of population in each riding so candidates have as much opportunity in one riding as the next. However, there also has to be balance between the number of rural and city ridings.
While I don’t know exactly what the formula is which strikes the necessary balance between the two areas of need, I do know the process needs to be implemented away from the ability of the government of the day to manipulate.
Since Harper has come to power, there has been a review of electoral boundaries across the country with the recommendation that up to five seats should be added to Ontario and some other seats added to some of the western provinces. His government chose to move on the western seats since that is where the bulk of his party’s support comes from but has ignored Ontario.
When Ontario Premier McQuinty spoke up and complained about the openly political manipulation, he was called “the small man of Confederation” by one of Harper’s cabinet ministers. A Prime Minister with any sense of propriety would have rebuked this minister for his derogatory comment and then given McQuinty’s complaint at minimum some sort of reasoned response. Harper doesn’t have that sense.
So, we need to equitably distribute electoral boundaries but it needs to be done through a process that isn’t open to manipulation or abuse. I’ll continue to remind myself that I vote for an MP and then factor in what I think of the candidate’s leader.
The Governor General
The Governor General is not our Head of State, (that is the Queen), but does function as the Head of State. When our system is working properly, the GG should be a denier of power and abuse by the Prime Minister and his government.
I did say when the system is working properly. There are many who believe this office should be elected, while others want to just throw it away. The latter group largely don’t understand what the role of the GG is supposed to be. Some of that lack of understanding comes about because we rarely see the GG called on to act when it matters. As for the former group, I’m not a believer that democracy can only be attained through electing every element of our government.
I tend to believe democracy is attained when the checks and balances between elected and unelected elements are treated like a sacred trust which must be upheld. We’ve seen repeatedly how the electoral process can be manipulated by the manipulation of public opinion and perceptions.
While it is generally understood the GG acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, we often forget the GG has the right and a duty to consult with the other parts of the Parliament of the people, the Official Opposition, in making a decision on a request from the Prime Minister.
Remember the coalition? Had Harper not convinced the GG to prorogue Parliament last year and the vote of non-confidence had succeeded the coalition would then have had to have presented themselves to the GG and asked her to allow them to form the Government. She would have then had the right and the duty to consider if this request would provide Canadians with stable government or if it would be better to send the question to the people.
With that level of responsibility, I believe Canadians have right to expect their GG is a person of high integrity and moral courage to make the tough decisions when dealing with a political process like we have.
The Magna Carta from which our system developed came about to stop the absolute power of Monarchs over the people. The Monarch and her representatives serve to stop the absolute power of those the people elect from stealing our right to elect.
Currently the Prime Minister selects the GG and then recommends the choice to the Queen for appointment. This takes place every five years. This office has become highly political and ripe with patronage over the years, and that is where the rot comes in.
While I don’t agree the GG should be elected, I do believe that in this day and age of electronic media the people should have a say. I would like to see a system in place that starts at least a year prior to the next appointment which allows citizens to nominate members of their community to be the GG. The nomination would need to be supported by at least ten other Canadians and contain a citation of the grounds on which the nominators feel this person should be GG.
A thorough background check would then have to be carried out by our security services and any nominees not eliminated through skeletons in their closet should then be turned over to a committee. The committee should be an equal number from each party in the House and the Senate chaired by one of the Supreme Court judges.
The committee would be charged with reviewing each nomination and bringing the list down to ten. Those ten should then come before the committee, in public hearings, to be ‘interviewed’ for the position. The final choice would then be passed to the Prime Minister of the day to recommend to the Queen. A similar process could be implemented by each Province for the selection of their Lieutenant-Governor.
The Senate
Ah the Senate, when it is working, it should be the place of sober second thought on the Bills passed in Parliament. Many believe this part of over governance should be eliminated, others want it to be an elected body. I don’t agree with either choice myself. I also don’t like the Prime Minister having the lone power to appoint.
Harper and his minions have been proclaiming loudly as of late that the Liberal dominated Senate has been blocking his Government’s bills. When the Senate is doing its job, it should be examining each and every piece of legislation which it receives from the House of Commons and, if warranted, make amendments rather than just rubber stamping. The amended Bill would then return to the House for reconsideration. This process can be lengthy but at the same time, it should produce legislation which is well developed and thought out.
When we have a minority government, that process becomes even more important. If you will recall, some of the legislation the Harper government wanted passed was done so under the threat that Harper would make it a matter of confidence which placed the Opposition in the position of triggering an election or holding their nose and passing the bill. That is not in the best interest of the people. Thus the body of sober second thought becomes important.
It is the type of political manipulation that Harper has engaged in which convinces me we don’t need a second body of elected politicians which can be likewise manipulated. I know that party leanings can’t be eliminated from the Senate but I also believe that shouldn’t be a criteria for the selection of a Senator. The votes of the Senate should be independent of party affiliations.
Even in our current system, the leader of the political parties in the House of Commons is not supposed to even attempt to influence their party members in the Senate. Harper deceives Canadians by referring to the Liberal Senators as “Ignatieff’s Liberal Senators”. They may be members of the Liberal party but they don’t come under the leader of the party’s direction. Apparently Harper has been exerting control over the Conservative Senators.
I believe a process like I’ve described above for the selection of the GG could be implemented for the Senate. The difference would be the committee which vets the nominees would come from the Provincial Legislature in the Province the Senator is being chosen for and the chair would be from the Provincial Supreme Court.
I do believe Senators should be subjected to terms of office, four years each seems to be reasonable. Any Senator having served their term can be renominated as many times as citizens see fit to do so but the nominee must go through the process like any one else.
A Senate not drawn along political party lines would elect among themselves a Speaker of the Senate whose duty it would be to control the debate on the bills which come before it. Each Senator would have to work to the benefit of the province which sent it or expect to be replaced in the next round of nominations.
Well those are my thoughts on democratic reform. What are yours?
