Why I’m not voting for any party next time

The Liberals aren’t getting my vote. But neither is any other party.

There is a flawed belief that democracy is only successful if it is organized as a block of political units. That political parties have come to define these units and dominate the electoral process illustrates that we, as citizens, aren’t letting ourselves believe any other form of governance is possible.

But if political parties really reflected the ideals of democracy, then why do we mostly continue to choose between only two main entities? Why do we not encourage more such groups to take root? Why has the federal NDP still been unable to divert attention away from the “big two”?

And what about that “party” of one, the Greens? Does Maxime Bernier really know what he is getting himself into?

Democracy in many ways makes fools of us. Where we think we are voting for a unified set of ideals, in actuality we are voting for an individual: the party leader. It’s almost like a subliminal dictatorship. Yes, we can agree not to vote them back in. But we are still limited by what the party system will offer us. Another leader, the other party. Or another leader, same party.

When the federal Liberals won in 2015, it was not so much that we wanted the party to win, but that we wanted Justin Trudeau to win. Stephen Harper represented not so much the unified stance of the Conservative party — his followers quickly changed gears after their electoral loss — but his own arrogant agenda.

The NDP is on a losing streak not because we feel its members are unable to govern, but because, earlier, Tom Mulcair and now Jagmeet Singh can’t seem to get their act together. The choice between voting for the Conservatives or the Liberals next year is whether we want to see Andrew Scheer as prime minister or Justin Trudeau.

Why follow this path so blindly? Why not, as citizens, choose another way, where we elect people who represent our communities (which they are supposed to do anyway) as individuals, instead of as party members? Why don’t we have faith in independent candidates, since we say democracy and change lies in the hands of the individual?

The idea is not all that unusual. In the 2008 federal elections, 71 independents ran for national office; in 2011, 61 ran; and in 2015, 74. Combined, just over a half-dozen have ever won.

Maybe that’s because our collective psyche is far too well-conditioned to recognize political parties as governing entities, rather than accepting individuals who actually believe they can make a change in their communities. The cultlike status of the party is discomfiting. Loyalty is heavily rewarded while disloyalty or mere disagreement are punished.

Electing independents may not be the perfect solution. It would require creating different codes of conduct, accountability and funding mechanisms. It would mean rethinking the management of foreign policy and international trade and diplomacy and redefining the role of “The Leader.”

But conceptually, it wouldn’t be a big leap. MPs already represent the constituents of their ridings who voted for them. If they were not forced to affiliate themselves with a party, they would, for all intents and purposes, be independent voices, voices able to listen to the needs of their constituents.

They wouldn’t be forced to toe the party line on manufactured issues such as immigration or abortion or religious freedom. They could focus on what their constituents needed: help creating jobs for available skills; better coordination with other levels of government. Even help fund or build a new church, mosque or synagogue.

Localized needs would be heard, debated and decided on locally.

And that’s what would have a national effect on the economy and society. Growth comes from action, not talk. And political parties love to talk.

Leadership is in crisis everywhere. We need to solve it by creating several leaders, not just one.

So next year, I’m voting for my independent candidate.