More upside to fixed election dates than term limits

The Parti Québécois government has moved swiftly to introduce legislation calling for fixed dates for provincial elections.

The measure met with general approval. The worst the opposition managed to say about it was to question the government’s hurry in introducing the measure, and suggesting that there are more pressing priorities the government should be addressing.

It is hardly a groundbreaking initiative, unlike the political financing law passed by the first PQ administration under René Lévesque in 1977. As it is, such legislation is in place in nearly all provinces as well as on the federal level. If the PQ bill passes, only Nova Scotia will be without a fixed-date election law.

There are valid arguments for and against such a measure, but on the whole it is more commendable than not. In any case, it may not make as much of a difference as some might think.

It is good in that it makes for a fairer system than allowing the government to call the election at an opportune time of its choosing within the standard five-year mandate for Canadian administrations. As well, it is suggested that it could save some money if the chief electoral officer were able to budget for a specific election date rather than having to be prepared for a vote at any time.

On the downside, a fixed election date could lead to extended campaigning of the sort that makes U.S. elections seem like such an interminable slog. Even without picking the election date, knowing when elections need to be held could encourage governments to deploy public funds for partisan purposes in the lead-up period.

But even if the proposed new provincial legislation passes, it still will not mean that we will necessarily have elections on the last Monday of September in the fourth year of a government’s mandate, as the PQ bill specifies.

It does not change the requirement that a government must retain the confidence of a majority of the members of the legislature on vital measures, most notably the budget. In that respect, it is highly unlikely that this government will serve until Sept. 26, 2016, the projected fixed date for the next election.

And even at that, the government is still free to ignore the fixed election date without suffering anything more than charges of opportunism and hypocrisy. This was shown by the federal Conservative government, which introduced a similar law in 2007, only to call a snap election the following year. The move was challenged in the courts, but the courts to which the matter was referred ruled that despite the fixed election law, under the constitution it remains the prerogative of the governor-general to dissolve a sitting Parliament for an election call, something the governor-general typically does at the behest of the prime minister.

Another change the PQ government is contemplating is to introduce term limits for premiers and mayors. In the case of premiers, it would be two terms, and for mayors of municipalities with 5,000 residents or more it would be three terms. There are also pros and cons to such a measure, but in this case the reservations tend to outweigh the recommendations for it.

Arguments in favour suggest that term limits would reduce the scope for corruption, make way for new people with fresh ideas (in particular enhancing women’s access to office) and produce elected officials who are more in touch with their public than longserving incumbents who grow too comfortable in office. On the downside, it is suggested that it would weigh against good people bolstered by long experience in office, and that it would do little to directly combat corruption, since corrupt people don’t necessarily wait until later terms in office to turn crooked. Furthermore, opponents say, term limits would limit the scope of voters to elect the best available people to serve them, and also impose lame-duck status on premiers and mayors in their final term.

In addition, applying such a limit to municipalities with as few as 5,000 residents might make it difficult to find people willing and/or able to serve as mayor. As it is, there is a limited number of people, particularly in small towns, who want to serve in municipal government, and in many cases as a result mayors are elected by acclamation.

As for fighting corruption, the key is not so much limiting the mayor’s term in office as it is ensuring transparency in council dealings and an active interest by citizens in the affairs of their municipalities. Such transparency was notably lacking in the case of Laval, whose long-serving mayor, Gilles Vaillancourt, resigned Friday amid multiple corruption-related police raids on his property and the offices of municipal contractors.

Any democratic reform should be in the best interest of voters. In the case of fixed elections, that is at least somewhat enhanced. Term limits, on the other hand, would limit the choices available to voters, and that is not a good thing.