Liberals won a mandate for electoral reform
What’s needed isn’t a referendum, but consultation and free debate
Justin Trudeau’s quote of Laurier’s “sunny ways” is code for a well thought out project to change the way politics is done in this country.
The simple adversarial system that once underlay parliamentary democracy has become so distorted as to defeat the purpose it was intended to serve. Hearing and participating in lively debate on both sides of an issue once gave the people and their representatives a sound basis for legislation and assurance it had been duly arrived at, like chewing one’s food before swallowing.
Even if a government had a strong majority in the House, it was not assured its agenda would pass as a fait accompli. Debate in Parliament could focus public attention that might lead to calls for changes by opposition amendment or pressure on government MPs to slow down or withdraw the legislation. If what finally passed did not represent a general consensus, there was still a sense of fair play in the game.
Until the Liberals voted closure to end the 1956 pipeline debate — a move that cost them the next election — it was considered “bad play” to force an issue until debate had run its course. A government outvoting opponents before they had their chance to speak was seen as abuse of its majority.
How things have changed. In the mindset of winner-takes-all, Parliament became a rubber stamp of the government’s agenda. Debate was a ritual to be dispensed with when possible through omnibus bills. For an opposition it became a chance to hurl invective or make specious promises it would never be called on to deliver.
The cocktail of attack ads, rote talking points and wedge issues — carefully researched and psychologically tested — was concocted not to sharpen debate but to shush it. Is there a new opposition leader on the horizon? Then frame them to look ridiculous before there’s a chance to speak and gain credibility.
Is there a sensitive issue where critics are calling for clause-by-clause study? Accuse them of playing loose with public safety or being soft on child molesters. Such images and issues push buttons at lower levels of the brain, bypassing conscious thought needed for rational debate.
Applying stimulus-response science resulted in a situation where an angry and manipulative 30 per cent of the populace held the rest to ransom. The “others” were not seen as worthy opponents to be considered or included in debate in hope of arriving at a consensus. They were dismissed and marginalized in a continuing divide-andconquer.
First-past-the-post is the system that made possible this state of affairs that was roundly rejected in the October election. It is proper then for Trudeau to introduce an alternative system as he promised to do in the campaign and as part of his overall pledge of “real change.” An election fought on this issue is mandate enough.
Calls for a referendum on the reform require second thought. Referendums are favourite tools for despots to acquire additional powers and for other politicians to sidestep their elective responsibilities.
What has been promised, and can be expected, is public consultation. This can be delivered in an all-party process with free discussion and free votes in Parliament. We’ve become cynical of decades of servile parliaments. But a freer Parliament with cabinet government and a non-partisan Senate is part of the promised reform package on which Trudeau has already begun to deliver.
If Parliament is to return to a place of debate and convergence for all Canadians, it deserves to host and lead this discussion.
The two electoral systems being considered will lead to convergence in different ways. In preferential ranked balloting, the voter numbers candidates in order of choice. Aspiring first or secondplace runners are unlikely to slam opponents personally if they’re dependent on the same candidates’ second choice voters to make it over the top. Majority governments can still emerge in this system but less likely by accident of a few votes, and more as a result of reflection by the voter: Who do I really want to see in, and why?
Proportional representation allots seats based on candidates’ percentage of the popular vote. This leads to more seats for smaller parties and few majorities. Effective governance here depends on negotiation among factions to form common fronts or coalitions. Even majority governments would be coalitions whose factions are brokered and whipped in the party caucus. Bringing this backroom bargaining into the House can serve a more transparent democracy.
The most acerbic criticism of the Trudeau reform package at present is coming from some in the media. This may be self-serving. The consensual approach will yield a more “boring” politics than the conflict-driven ones commentators thrive on. Pitched battles, scandals and “gotcha” moments are pay-dirt for pundits: reason to keep adding fuel to the fire. This, too, is a part of our politics that needs to change.