OUR FRIENDLY DICTATORS SPEAK SOFTLY, USE A WHIP
Sometimes I’m not convinced Canadians are particularly committed to democracy.
We think we are, though. Especially in contrast to our powerful neighbour to the south, whose polarized politics both entertain and outrage us.
But there is an argument to be made that the U.S. — as well as Britain, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Japan and a host of other advanced nations — have political systems that are more democratic, accountable and transparent than those in Ottawa and the provinces.
And that is not necessarily because some of those nations have a version of proportional representation (which four in 10 British Columbians chose in last fall’s referendum). There is little doubt that proportional representation, as the name suggests, provides voters with fairer “representation” and leads to more collaboration between parties.
But there is another rarely discussed aspect of Canada’s federal and provincial political system that needs reform, because it also renders our governments unusually weak in regards to democratic values. And that is party discipline, particularly the “whip system.”
It turns most MPs and MLAs into little more than often-disparaged trained seals.
The office of the government whip, which enforces conformity on parliamentary votes, represents a lost opportunity for independent thinking. Worse, it encourages Canada’s prime ministers and premiers to make themselves into what one analyst rightly calls “friendly dictators.”
Canadians have become used to such leaders: The ones who smile for the cameras while speaking softly. Meanwhile, these same prime ministers and premiers use the office of the whip to carry an incredibly big stick, which they use to smash fresh ideas and challenges.
Since proportional representation is done and dusted for probably another generation in B.C., maybe we could take a stab at updating the draconian whip system, which renders most Canadian MPs and MLAs (and in many cases even cabinet ministers) virtually useless.
Backbenchers have become almost entirely beholden to their leader and his or her cabal of inner-circle advisers. Witness the extreme secrecy around the machinations by Justin Trudeau over Huawei, SNC-Lavalin and demoted justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Witness the enormous power wielded by B.C.’s Christy Clark and John Horgan, even if the latter, with his minority government, has been forced to collaborate with Green party leader Andrew Weaver.
Canadians have come to think the whip system is a near-sacred tradition and necessary to run government. But it’s largely avoided in most countries, because it does not allow for the robust sharing of views.
Anybody tracking Britain’s Brexit debates will have noted the intense criticism of Conservative and Labour leaders by backbenchers in their own parties. In the U.S., Republican and Democrat politicians often speak with more freedom than do Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP.
Australian prime ministers are also often forced out because of the intense scrutiny of their own caucus. Japanese prime ministers come and go frequently as well, ousted by party members. All of these advanced countries continue to have strong cultures and economies. Canada is the outlier.
“Most of the world’s parliamentary nations — whether they use first-past-the-post elector systems or some variant of proportional representation — have that culture of constant accountability,” writes Christopher Moore in this month’s edition of Policy Options.
Over time in Canada, argues Moore, caucus members have “surrendered their power to control their leaders, (allowing) the boss to govern single-handedly. … MPs get to say ‘aye’ and give the boss standing ovations. But policy is mostly made by consultants in the leaders’ offices.”
Most backbenchers in this country who speak their minds, and even many cabinet ministers, are summarily terminated.
Sean Holman, an associate professor of journalism at Mount Royal University in Calgary and a former investigative reporter covering B.C. politics, has added his voice to the cause of reform by creating a revealing documentary titled Whipped: The Secret World of Party Discipline.
Whipped exposes the private humiliation experienced by B.C. backbenchers, who describe their “soul-destroying ” role as puppets. The documentary makes clear a caucus member who dissents not only pays for it during their time in office, but for the rest of their careers. The party ostracizes them for disloyalty.
Citing some B.C. political history, Holman, who uses the term “friendly dictators,” said he seemed to be one of the few who found it healthy in 2010 when a group of 13 NDP MLAs decided to question the leadership of Carole James.
By all accounts, James, who is now finance minister, is a woman of integrity, but she had already lost two elections by that time. Holman did not find it surprising that caucus members challenged her leadership, even while others were treating the MLAs as treasonous and James as feeble for putting up with it. Now, virtually all those backbenchers are gone from the B.C. NDP caucus.
The power of the office of the whip has grown even more extreme in recent years, says Holman. Public relations departments now dictate government marketing strategies, and there is relentless pressure for everyone to avoid veering from the leader’s canned message.
“What do we, the public, really want (from our elected officials)?” Holman asks. “Do we want efficiency? Or do we want democracy? We should be honest about our choice.”
Maybe I’m a glutton for lost causes, given the failure of proportional representation, but I wonder if we could mount public pressure for the easing of Canadian party discipline, for giving backbenchers a chance to really take part each day in parliamentary democracy.
It will be up to citizens to take on the conformist political culture. The leaders aren’t going to do it. Moore suggests, “We need to reject pundits who tell us unaccountable leadership is the nature of parliamentary democracy and who see rebellion, disloyalty and weak leadership when backbenchers dissent. Above all, we can teach the representatives we elect, federal and provincial, that their job as parliamentarians is to represent all Canadians, not their leaders.”
That is a fine vision. But I admit it’s hard to feel optimistic about it. I am skeptical about whether Canadians care that much about democratic principles within government. It’s easier to just feel superior to Americans and their political dramas, ignoring that their system often allows some individuality that ours does not.
I don’t expect many Canadians will speak up for the rights of backbenchers. We’ve probably become used to smiling dictators and their public relations machines.
But are we comfortable believing democracy requires little more than casting a ballot once every four years?
We can teach the representatives we elect, federal and provincial, that their job as parliamentarians is to represent all Canadians, not their leaders. Christopher Moore
The whip system turns most MPs and MLAs into little more than trained seals.