If electoral reform dead, let’s tackle partisanship

A common complaint about government centres around the phenomenon of the “elected dictatorship.”

That’s not always the term used in coffee shops and auction barns in rural Ontario, but that’s the concept at the root of much grumbling.

Once a party gets a majority in the parliamentary system, the leader is pretty much free to do whatever he or she chooses.

The checks and balances built into the American system don’t exist here. If they did, it’s a safe bet Kathleen Wynne would have been impeached long ago.

At the federal level in Canada the Senate could pull the reins on government excess had it not become a barroom joke in recent years.

The new non-partisan senators might have something to say about that, but don’t bet on it.

Other than that slim possibility, the first minister of each jurisdiction is next thing to a dictator, as long as elected party members toe the line.

Canadians don’t like this aspect of government, and now we have more than just anecdotal evidence to prove it.

It’s a clear conclusion in a federal questionnaire on electoral reform.

A majority of Canucks want political parties to work together. How’s that for a radical concept?

The destructive partisanship that has dominated our politics for the past several years is about as popular as a skunk at a garden party. And it certainly isn’t productive.

Because question period at the federal level is televised, that exercise is more about primping and posturing than it is about real work.

Seventy per cent of respondents to the questionnaire prefer a system where several parties “have to collectively agree before a decision is made.”

The whole electoral reform thing comes into play here. The folks in favour of replacing the first-past-thepost system say the 70 per cent shows strong support for some kind of proportional representation.

Since the Trudeau Liberals have chickened out on that thorny issue, broad reform seems a distant possibility at best.

However, maybe there are other ways the parties could work together. For example, debates in the House could become real, instead of staged partisan rumbles. Then the best decision could come from consideration of all points of view and attendant compromise.

That would require MPs and MPPs to stop playing for the cameras and the next election. Surely that’s not as impossible as it sounds. Most of our representatives are well intentioned, are they not?

The 70 per cent agreement in the questionnaire extended to this statement: “a party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.”

That seems so self-evident as to be trite and yet it bears little resemblance to the way our system works in Ottawa or provincial capitals.

As noted, upending the entire system with major electoral reforms to reach such goals is not in the cards. But that might be like using a sledge hammer to fix a wrist watch anyway.

Good leadership among the parties and a real commitment to the good of the country always coming ahead of the good of the party, might start us down a more productive path to good governance.

The negative impact of the partisan divide was clearly evident in the talk about electoral reform.

The issue was overtaken by hyperpartisanship so early in the discussions that a referendum on the issue would have been nothing but another battle of foggy ideologies.

Goodwill and common sense would be a better start in both Ottawa and Toronto. But don’t hold your breath.