Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Democracy's not dead

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:25am - 50 Comments

I don’t agree with everything Andrew Potter says here—I think there are legitimate complaints to be made about how our system presently functions and a serious discussion about solutions that should be had—but I have found the recently fashionable hand-wringing over partisanship and decorum to be both over-wrought and shallow.

Why is everyone so convinced our democracy is ruined? There are at least two reasons. The first is the widespread tendency to mistake the work environment for the institution. That is, a lot of the hand-wringing over our democracy is actually just a dislike for the nasty tone of Question Period, or the partisanship of committees. But a lack of decorum is not the same as institutional dysfunction. Our members of Parliament treat one another with disrespect. So what? Why should that bother anyone off the Hill? If MPs want to run their workplace like it’s always last call on Friday night at YukYuks, that’s their business.

Tags: decorum, democracy, house of commons, Ottawa, Parliament, Question Period

More by Aaron Wherry

MostlyCivil

"If MPs want to run their workplace…"

But it's not theirs. It's ours. The least they could do is stop publicly giving the finger to the bosses on a daily basis.

LdKitchenersOwn

If MPs want to run their workplace like it’s always last call on Friday night at YukYuks, that’s their business.

MostlyCivil basically said exactly what I was going to say about this, as I was confused by this notion of the EMPLOYEES getting to set the tone of the workplace rather than the employers. If employees at my workplace acted the way MPs tend to at theirs there would be big trouble from our bosses.

Why should it bother anyone off the Hill if our MPs are running Parliament as though it were a school for clowns? How about because we're not paying them to act like clowns?

JonnyBoy

And yet the voting public continues to reward not substance, but showmanship. Personally, I do get sick of parties constantly seeking the next scandal and accusing everyone within hearing distance of being scandalous, but we the employers should make no mistake that we are in some complicated way complicit. We are the ones who get just as excited about the next whiff of scandal as they are, and we are also the ones who do not motivate our employees enough to actually do their jobs. Take for example this issue that was raised about Minister Diane Finley's office not being wheelchair accessible. In terms of the work that our employees do, that is quite literally a non-issue. And yet it was raised as if it was the most important thing in the world, and you can bet that there were more comments from us the employees on that story than on some boring story about actual substantial governing matters.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you, just trying to round out the picture.

brooster2

"Take for example this issue that was raised about Minister Diane Finley's office not being wheelchair accessible. In terms of the work that our employees do, that is quite literally a non-issue."

Speak for yourself there, buddy. For wheelchair-users like me, it's a big issue, indeed.

Phil_King

I agree with MostlyCivil. Parliament belongs to the people and the daily public disgrace of Question Period is embarassing to Canadians and makes you wonder what they act like in private if this is the kind of public face they're willing to show.

Besides, the question of whether our democracy is dying on the vine has far more to do with our antiquated electoral system and the fact that it doesn't represent the wishes of the voters with anything approaching accuracy.

If only 35% of the people support a party, how can that party govern with such disregard of the other 65%?

First past the post worked when you needed a strong result from what was essentially a two party system.

In a five party system it's complete bollox.

Loraine Lamontagne

Because a government doesn't need 51% of the electorate but it does need the support of 50% plus 1 of the elected representatives of the people of Canada.

I don't find that Canadians in the House of Commons act differently when discussing politics than Canadians who comment on blogs.

If I found my MP was behaving like an a..hole in the House I would not vote for him next election.

JonnyBoy

My sentiments exactly. We should certainly be weary of the self-righteous assertion that they are just immature and juvenile. And I think that if we are the Employers (by the way, I'm not totally sold on that analogy, but most people seem to be so I'll roll with it), then we enable them with the way that we encourage their immaturity and juvenility.

Earth to Wherry

Solutions, you want solutions, well here are two that should work.

The opposition should just sit down, shut up and let the goverrnment work

The government should quit trying to change things and do whatever they can to enact opposition policies.

TJCook

"The opposition should just sit down, shut up and let the goverrnment work"

Well apparently Potter was right about bad civics education.
D.D.S

It is the opposition's job to oppose….and when did Harper think he had a mandate to "change things" with 30-35% support…what about the 65% that didn't vote for Harper?

hollinm

Once again you had no problem when Chretien won a majority government with 38% of the vote. Somehow that majority was quite alright and it was ok to move forward with his legislation. Now the Conservatives have the same percentage in 08 and somehow he is illegitimate.
Whether you like it or not Harper is PM and the Conservative party forms the government. He has the right to govern the country as he sees fit not as the opposition parties see fit.
Only the Canadian people have the right to determine whether he is doing enough or a good job. Not the opposition or those on this board.

TJCook

From Potter's piece:

"…if there is one idea that brings people together from all corners of the political landscape, it is the certainty Canadian democracy lies in ruins."

And later:

"Why is everyone so convinced our democracy is ruined?"

The article is based on a strawman. I rarely hear anyone claim that our democracy is "dead" or "ruined", and Potter himself cites exactly one example.

What I do hear frequently is concern that our democracy is being undermined, and I see good reasons for that concern. But I suppose that would be difficult to ridicule, so Potter's strawman sets the stage for the article.

Thwim

Meh. It's Potter. That's pretty much par for the course.

Bob

Anyone else not surprised Wherry doesn't mind partisanship?

brooster2

And why should he or anyone else mind partisanship? There's nothing wrong with partisanship, per se. Institutional conflict is built into the very fabric of parliamentary democracy.

It's the utter lack of civility in the conduct of QP and, increasingly, in committee proceedings, that's the issue. Partisanship doesn't have to involve loutish behaviour.

John.K

Maybe what we need is a remake of Quentin Durgins, MP to educate the population on what Parliament is supposed to look like….
Emily

When Canadians are noticing that Parliament resembles a bar brawl more than a learned discussion about the nation's affairs, it's time to change.

This is not the way to run a G8 nation in the 21st century.

LdKitchenersOwn

Not that I disagree with your point, but which G8 nation would you suggest has a legislative assembly that actually involves a "learned discussion about the nation's affairs"?

Emily

The point is that if we are big enough to be a G8 nation, we should act in a position of leadership and find a way to deal with the new era instead of remaining in 1867.

Our system is borrowed from the Brits and involves tricorne hats, aisles measured in swordlengths, and maces.

The whole thing is an antique.

Thwim

Personally.. I think the mace should see more use.

King Rat

People say this kind of thing, but what exactly do they mean by it? If you look around at the other G8 nations, it's not like they're all run like Plato's Republic. Should we be seeking to emulate the United States' learned discussions, with sober symposiums about death panels and endless tax cuts? How about Italy – there's a country with dignified and respectable political leaders. Or the United Kingdom, which has precisely the same system of government we do. All of this is leaving out Russia.

The point is not that there's nothing we could do better. But the notion that we're some kind of international embarrassment not fit to be seen in public or something is narcissistic and unfounded in fact.

Emily

Why are we thinking of emulating anybody? The idea is to find something that works for the era we're in.

Before we have fistfights break out.
brooster2

"But the notion that we're some kind of international embarrassment not fit to be seen in public or something is narcissistic and unfounded in fact."

And irrelevant, in any event. The behaviour of politicians in other political cultures should be neither an excuse nor a benchmark for the boorish conduct of our own.

hollinm

Potter is right. Our system is adversarial. By nature it is the job of the opposition to hold the government to account. They are failing badly. Why? Because they have lost touch with what the people want. They are looking after their own self interest.
The rules for minority parliaments need to change if this is what we are to expect for some time to come. Having four parties trying to run the country versus one is not good for the country. The opposition rather than trying to hold the government to account is trying to override the government and put in its own policies. Talk about a banana republic. The opposition proposes legislation and the government is held to account and not the opposition parties. Is there not something wrong with this picture? No wonder Canadians are confused and cynical.

Loraine Lamontagne

Parties should not run anything, least of all government! I've belonged to parties and I am well aware that they are private organizations, not democratic institutions. As for the situation you describe in minority situation in your last sentence, I guess that's one of the reasons why we have a Senate.
LdKitchenersOwn

The opposition rather than trying to hold the government to account is trying to override the government and put in its own policies. Talk about a banana republic.

If the opposition's policies on a given issue are supported by the majority of Members of Parliament, and the government's policies on said issue are NOT supported by the majority of Members of Parliament, then this is exactly what the opposition is supposed to do! The role of the opposition is not to implement government policy, it is to ensure that policies are passed into law that have the support of the majority of our elected representatives. If the opposition is trying to "override" the government by substituting policies which have the support of the majority of the House for policies which do not have the support of the majority of the House that's not some flaw in the system, that's how the system is supposed to work. We're supposed to be ruled by Parliament, not just the government benches.

hollinm

Thats a load of crap. The opposition are there to hold the government to account. Nobody says that description changes in a minority government and you know it.

It is the job of the government to propose legislation and it is the job of the opposition to critique it and oppose when necessary. That's it. Having four parties trying to run the country is a recipe for disaster.

LdKitchenersOwn

No, I never said the description of the opposition changes in a minority Parliament. The opposition is no more responsible for helping the government implement it's policies in a majority Parliament either, they just have less power to stop it in that scenario.

If the government is attempting to legislate something in a majority Parliament without the support of the majority of our elected representatives, it's still the opposition's responsibility to stop them, and if the opposition proposes legislation that IS supported by the majority of our elected representatives (because the majority government can't keep their caucus in line) then it's the opposition's responsibility to try to pass said legislation that IS supported by the majority of Parliamentarians.

Saying that "It is the job of the government to propose legislation and it is the job of the opposition to critique it and oppose when necessary. That's it." is not only a gross oversimplification of our system of government, it's patently false.

hollinm

If my analysis is a gross simplication your analysis is a recipe for confusion, obstruction for the sake of obstruction and makes the country virtually impossible to govern. If your analysis is right then why is there a rule that no legislation put forward by the opposition can force the government to spend money?

Thwim

I think, as LKO demonstrates, the confusion lies mostly within CPC supporters like yourself.

However, you may be correct about most Canadians being cynical. Given the capricious relation between the governing party's actions and CPC campaign rhetoric, I think this is understandable.

hollinm

Of course the opposition are innocent and Harper is to blame for everything bad that happens. Delusional.
hollinm

It is the Canadian people through an election who determines the performance of the government not the opposition parties.

Loraine Lamontagne

Harper was elected on a promise to make big changes to our democratic institutions. Shall we start with a fixed elections date law? How about his promise not to appoint Senators? How about his promise regarding free votes?

Harper is responsible for promising things he KNEW he could not deliver on. And that makes him responsible, in my mind, for increasing cynicism in the population.

hollinm

Do you honestly believe the vast majority of Canadians are lying awake at night thinking of these things?. They are busy trying to keep their jobs and survive. Maybe we political junkies think about these things but not the great swath of people. They are not cynical because of the issues you raise.

We all new the fixed election date was flawed. In fairness the Libs argued the case at the time saying that the powers of the GG were not changed (that would require a constitutional amendment) and therefore the fixed election date law was flawed. The group Democracy Watch brought the issue to court and they lost. Harper and the GG had the right to do what they did.

I agree about Senators. He tried to change the rules and was blocked. Do you honestly believe he was going to leave a large number of seats in the Senate vacant so that the Libs could fill them if they ever get back into government. The Senate was becoming dysfunctional because of the empty seats. It was also unfair to the provinces who were missing the representation.
LdKitchenersOwn

They are busy trying to keep their jobs and survive.

"Survive"?

I know the economy's not great, but did I miss a zombie apocalypse?

I do like your spin though. It's not so much the Tories fault for breaking their promises, it's our fault for believing that they'd keep their promises.
hollinm

So you pick one word out of comments and criticize. You chose to ignore any of the other points I made which are true. You can accuse any government and there was plenty of promise breaking in the Chretien/Martin years. However, to suggest that politicians should always keep their promises no matter what the situation is naive in the extreme or simply partisan rhetoric which I suspect that is where you are coming from.
Once again Canadians are not cynical over the so called broken promises they are cynical because of the way Parliament is working and how the media reports on politics.
hollinm

hollinm continued…..

Free votes? I don't remember this being a big promise so I will take your word that he did promise this. However, I suspect the free votes were based on matters of conscience i.e. same sex marriage which was a free vote.
Thwim

Not remembering the campaigns seems to be a common theme among the remaining CPC supporters.

Free votes for everything but confidence and budget matters was the original promise.

brooster2

Hollinm: "The opposition rather than trying to hold the government to account is trying to override the government and put in its own policies. Talk about a banana republic."

Seems to me you're missing the point here. Neither the agenda of the Opposition nor that of the Government needs to be conducted with all the decorum and respect of a frat house end-of-semester party. They're adults and are well-paid to behave accordingly, on BOTH sides of the House.

hollinm

I don't disagree. However, I go back to my point. The system is frustrating the hell out of everyone. So they act up.

There needs to be some changes to the rules governing minority parliaments. Usually minority governments last 18 mos. We are now going on 5 years and I don't think the system was constructed to work under such a long period time. The opposition is frustrated but so is the government I suspect.

The fact remains we have 3 left wing parties in the House trying to get the Conservative government to enact their left wing legislation and it isn't working.

How do you get opposition parties passing environmental legislation with targets but no plan on how to reach those targets?
How do you get opposition parties passing legislation where all Supreme Court justices must be fully bilingual in a country where maybe 25% of the population is bilingual (high). Why would we agree to limiting the pool of legal talent to Francophones. Irresponsibile in my opinion.

Those are a couple of examples which show the opposition is simply trying to screw the government. They have no responsibility should the legislation be bad. It is the government who carries the can.

brooster2

Seems to me you're fixated on the issues of the day and on the unique composition of this particular House, with its three "left-wing" parties (as you choose to characterize them, although the lengthy history of the Liberal Party suggests the description is inapt in their case) and minority government.

I would suggest it's process that's flawed, not the issues nor the distribution of seats. There needs to be a way to curb the churlish behaviour of the worst offenders on both sides of the House, and it would be helpful if the Speaker were empowered to impose more decorum. As for committees, I have no answer, as the process in each would depend in large measure on the skills (and, to be fair, a modicum of impartiality) of the committee chair.

Having said all that, I must accept the fact that I'm dreaming.

hollinm

I agree with the bulk of what you said. However, to suggest the Liberal has not lurched to the left is incorrect. The Libs, NDP and Bloc are in sync on most issues. Environment, Bilingual Supreme Court Justices, Immigration, EI. The list goes on.
I would suggest that this is partly part of the Liberal problem these days. They are seen as not being much different from the NDP in their policies. The party of the centre has disappeared.
The Conservatives are straddling the centre and there is no place for the Libs to distinguish themselves as different. other than tacking to the left.
brooster2

A discussion of the political propensities of the Liberal Party is tangential to this thread, but I've always believed there is some truth to the old saw that the Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. An unreservedly left wing party in this country wouldn't have governed for as many years as the Liberals have (for better or worse).

And I find your characterization of the CPC as "straddling the center" amusing. I doubt that the many disaffected members of the old Progressive Conservatives would buy that.

PolJunkie

I do believe that our democratic institutions are threatened but not because of the shouting in QP. I'm still not over the Afghan detainee issue though our MPs and our 4th estate seemed to have moved on.
Loraine Lamontagne

I don't think our system is adversarial – politics is adversarial, here, in systems different from ours, like in the US or France, even in communist regimes. Political discussions are adversarial. The lack of decorum is greater than it used to be in our HoC. I have known parliament debates and question period strictly from Hansard, then twenty or so years ago we started to see QP, etc. I see less civility in the House – but I must say I see less civility in the streets as well. Our society as a whole is less polite. The old saying, that we have the politicians we deserve, still rings true to me.
brooster2

Perhaps in Potter's universe (Andrew, not Harry), when the honourable members are all behaving like buffoons in QP and in committee, they're at least being "authentic".
Dave

Democracy's not dead, it's just resting its eyes.

It's just tired, and is resting its eyes.

Thwim

Pining for the fjords, eh?

http://demokratia.jesaurai.net/ DJC

First democracy is self governement, what you are discussing is plutarcy cloaked in representative democracy, which is hopefully dying. At least wikileaks is lifting the cloak to reveal the withering old man of plutarcy. We can ressurect democracy, a true demokratia by giving people the means to vote every day with the money they spend, the goods and services they sell, and a vote for a true representative. See demokratia.jesaurai.net for more.
tobyornotoby

The problem isn't just the behaviour, it's that partisan rancour is what happens instead of confronting issues important to Canada.