Political parties create a more efficient legislature. Laws passed depend on the support of a majority of members and political parties can more easily mobilize support than a group of independents. This support is gathered through party discipline – a straightforward way of ensuring support for legislative bills. Canada, relative to other advanced parliamentary democracies, has very rigid party discipline. Like any system there are strengths and weaknesses and if this discipline is loosened there will be pros and cons for this as well.
The clearest weakness is that strict party discipline reduces MPs to a party line vote and makes MPs interchangeable to a degree. But what of the unique strengths each MP brings to Ottawa? They matter less because a member’s personal views are almost always subservient to the party platform, even when this clashes with their conscience or local needs.
Strong parties tend to overshadow candidates. As I watched the previous two debates at MHC and at the public library I was impressed by Glen Allan’s answers. I also thought Brent Smith was well prepared and appreciated his concise responses. But I found I was asking myself not whether I thought Mr. Allan and Mr. Smith were competent, but rather whether I could vote Liberal or Green. That’s too bad because the specific candidate should affect our vote as much as the party they represent. A weak or strong debate performance and campaign should make us reconsider our views on a candidate.
Strong parties also ensure that candidates are more or less vetted. The individuality we give up with party discipline saves us from outrageous candidates. But these safeguards have made us lazy because we know that if a candidate says or does something outrageous it is the party or the party leader that holds them accountable. They take care of it, not us.
Contrast this with independent candidates. Here it’s completely up to us to vet them. A prime example of the rewards and the dangers of independent candidates was on display in John Clayton Turner’s performance at the Medicine Hat News forum on September 29. Mr. Turner spoke in the straightforward manner than endears independent candidates to voters, but this straight talk cuts both ways. On the topic of the European refugee crisis Mr. Turner intimated that Canada is a Judeo-Christian country and that we should only accept Christian refugees. He correctly prefaced his comments with a warning – I’m probably going to get in trouble for saying this. He should get in trouble. That a candidate, for one of our most important political offices, would suggest discrimination on the basis of religion is disappointing. (That none of the other candidates on stage bothered to call Mr. Turner on it was also disappointing.) But I like independent campaigns because, however misguided Mr. Turner’s views on immigration are, I know that he is accountable only to us. Perhaps he misspoke; perhaps he has other ideas I like that outweigh his views on the refugee crisis. It’s up to only our local community to decide if he represents us.
To increase political engagement we must understand the strengths and weaknesses of our current system. It is a proven system and it has served us well, but we have seen its ceiling. If we are satisfied then let’s leave it alone. But if we think we can do better, then we must experiment while understanding the dangers of loosening party discipline. A glimpse to the south to the raucous American House of Representatives provides a good example. The trick would be to balance giving each MP a stronger voice in the constant evolution of platforms, while allowing parties to fight cohesively in parliament.
If we want greater political engagement we must first make that engagement meaningful. If we do give MPs more power it would fall to local communities to hold them accountable. To do that we’d need to be more engaged and vigilant. As in the case of independent candidates, it would be solely up to us to decide – not a party and not a party leader – if a candidate can represent us. That certainly would make our political engagement more meaningful.
Medicine Hat News. October 17, 2015