Liberals show true colours on reforming the system

Parties always put their interests ahead of principle Suddenly electoral reform seems less likely than even a week ago. It was always going to be a difficult task to craft a series of reforms that would receive wide support among parties, let alone the public. But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has seemed to lower the odds even more. His public musings that there is perhaps less appetite for reform now that his government has replaced Stephen Harper’s have sent reformers into a tailspin.

To be sure, Trudeau’s statement is by some lights arrogant. He seems to suggest that because Canada has a more centrist government — his government — there is less of a need to consider fundamental reforms. This is unacceptable. It should never be the case that we engage in reform of a democratic institution because we do not like one party being in power over another.

But in another sense, what he said has the virtue of being true. Much of the desire for reform sprang from the experience of watching Harper form government after three successive elections in which he never won more than 40 per cent of the vote.

There are always at least two motivations for parties when they demand institutional reform. One motivation is principled. A good number of citizens and some parties believe that because our electoral system regularly confers a large bonus of power on the leading party that it is undemocratic, even fundamentally so. Against such a system, they appeal to fundamental values of proportionality and greater representation.

We can take up empirical issue with whether proportional representation delivers more representation, but it is orthogonal to the point that they are sincerely motivated by these values.

The other motivation is self-interest. Is there any doubt that the Green party and the New Democratic Party wish for electoral reform because they want more power? And, relatedly, that they believe that PR countries produce more progressive policy; that is, policy that they prefer? The NDP has long advocated for PR, but this does not absolve them of self-interest.

Consider this question: how many provincial NDP governments in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have seriously advocated for proportional representation? Certainly, none have advanced this when in government. Do they hold different values from their federal counterparts? Or do they merely lose the appetite for electoral reform once they are in a system where they can compete effectively for power? What Trudeau has done is make a Kinsley gaffe, revealing a truth he did not intend. But at least he said it.

These dual motivations exist for citizens as well. They wish for an electoral system that comports with their general understanding and conception of basic democratic values. But all else equal, they also want a system in which their preferred party is more likely to win.

The difference between citizens and politicians is that for citizens elections are central institutions to their democratic lives, but not to their livelihoods. For most Canadians, participation in an election is followed by years of political inattention, until the next election. For politicians, elections are central to their livelihood. They have strong incentive to wish for a system which increases odds that they are reelected and that their party can aspire to power.

For citizens, the principled motivation may be the predominant one. We have no reason to believe it is for politicians. What this recommends, then, is that we allow the more disinterested group to make a final judgment on whether we ought to change a fundamental institution, not those who are so much more deeply interested in the outcome.

It should never be the case that we engage in reform of a democratic institution because we do not like one party being in power over another.