Canadians’ input not a panacea for change

It’s risky to simplify complex issues, writes Stewart Prest.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A Conservative MP asks Maryam Monsef if there will be a referendum on any proposal to reform the electoral system, and the minister for democratic institutions demurs in her response. It’s an exchange we’ve seen numerous times already this spring and summer, and one we’ll likely hear again.

Let’s, therefore, leave aside the unstoppable force and the immovable object for a moment and ask if we should have a referendum. Barring a requirement to amend the Constitution, it’s not a question with a definitive answer.

There are times when referendums are necessary, but they are comparatively few and far between in the context of a representative democracy such as Canada’s. Fundamental, irreversible changes such as to the boundaries of the polity and other definitive aspects of the social contract ought to be put before the people. At the other extreme are the many quotidian choices best left to the government of the day, which can then stand or fall on their record in the next election.

In between such clear cases, it’s complicated. Is the issue “sufficiently” significant? Is it irreversible? Does the decision require the kind of additional legitimation that only a referendum can provide? That last question is particularly relevant in the present context. Referendums are unparalleled among democratic processes in their ability to bestow or withhold legitimacy on a particular decision.

At the same time, they ought to be approached with caution for a number of reasons, many of which were on display in the recent Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom. Referendums are majoritarian exercises and cannot easily accommodate either nuanced opinions or the preferences of the minority. They reduce complex issues to a deceptively simple choice, one that can be influenced even by the wording of the question and the set of alternatives presented.

Advocates may make arguments on one side

Not all will invest the time necessary to separate good arguments from weak ones.

or another in the hopes of securing partisan or personal gain; some may even see profit in publicly arguing against what they privately believe. The conversation may focus on superficialities, inaccuracies and digressions at the expense of good-faith arguments.

Citizens, meanwhile, have many demands on them, and not all will invest the time necessary to separate good arguments from weak ones, or even to participate. Those who do cast a ballot do so for diverse reasons, and some may choose to register a vote of protest vote rather than to help decide the question at hand.

Further, there is a finality associated with referendums at odds with the transient nature of public opinion. People change their minds from week to week, even day to day, but a referendum is decisive — indeed, more so than any single election — and all sides must live with the result.

Accordingly, referendums ought to be treated with caution. They provide legitimacy, but are not a panacea. I believe that a referendum on electoral reform will be necessary if, and only if, it seems the only way to ensure that Canadians accept the proposed changes as legitimate.

Fundamental changes to the “rules of the game” require support beyond narrow partisan lines. With its all-party membership and lack of Liberal majority, the Commons’ electoral reform committee is an important element in establishing that breadth of support. Much, therefore, hangs on what happens there, and how the government responds to its conclusions.

The Conservatives, for their part, risk appearing obstructionist by focusing only on the referendum question and may actually weaken their case for a referendum in doing so.

They also pass up the chance to ask other potentially revealing questions — as, for instance, when Green party Leader Elizabeth May asked whether Monsef would promise to “fight for what this committee recommends.” When the minister did not do so, it reinforced the layer of partisanship that remains a threat to the legitimacy of the reform process.

In short, both parties stand to gain by investing more fully in the committee’s work, albeit for different reasons. Canadians must watch and see if they do so.