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

Long forgotten

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:01am - 6 Comments

Christopher Moore reviews John Ralston Saul’s Lafontaine & Baldwin.

On this central question of parliamentary accountability, we today live once again in something like pre-1848 conditions. What Canadian party leader ever cedes power because his or her caucus is changing its mind? Today we accept that any party leader who wins a majority has, not constant accountability, but a four-year free hand, during which any caucus member who doubts or disagrees will be put out of caucus and probably out of politics. We have replaced LaFontaine and Baldwin’s hard-won achievement of leadership accountability with the perverse idea that legislators are once more accountable to leaders, rather than the other way around…

When the country doesn’t take parliamentary accountability seriously, that is, we should not be surprised that our historians do not trouble themselves to write about its origins. Why should we take the events of 1848 seriously when everything about our politics suggests we have actually regressed to a lower standard of parliamentary practice?

Tags: Christopher Moore, democracy, house of commons, John Ralston Saul, Louis-Hippolute LaFontaine, Parliament, Robert Baldwin

More by Aaron Wherry

Anonymous

Once again, it comes down to the simple fact that MPs don’t feel the citizens are their boss.

And once again, that’s nobody’s fault but our own.

If we want change, we’re going to have to throw them out. All of them.

No incumbents.

It’s the only way to get government that listens to us.

Phil King

I think the real hurdle to affecting true democratic change is that our system is ruled by party politics and thus is leader-centric. Its hard to change things as a voter if there are no choices to reflect our dissatisfaction with this state of affairs. After all, there isn’t a ”no party” party to vote for.

So how can we affect a real change then that isn’t merely a demonstration of distaste for one party over another, ie if we threw out the cons and elected the dips, doesn’t it just re-cement the party system even further?

What makes this state of affair even worse is that ”groupthink” is obviously very successful in manipulating votes to capture seats. The very fact that parties can have dedicated “bases” that never seem to waver from their party commitment no matter the issue, is evidence of the problem.

I believe an alternative voting scheme that results in real majorities for MPs from across the political spectrum would be far more preferable. Under that sort of system MPs would receive votes from people whose first choice may have been another party, but still support this MP in lieu of others.

I’d follow this up with an open vote by parliament for the position of Prime Minister, who would then form a cabinet from the whole of parliament, not just one party, in balance with the make up of parliament.

But I think that would scare a lot of people and not be terribly popular, because ultimately most Canadians want to cast their vote and then forget about politics altogether. They don’t want the responsibility of keeping tabs on these people, and that’s what would be required in such a setting.

So I guess that comes back to your original premise. The current state of affairs is the fault of voters who just don’t care enough to ensure the government we elect is in fact a government for all people, not just a subset.

Anonymous

Hence why no incumbents. Does it actually solve anything if we oust all the incumbents but simply replace them with MPs from another party? Not really.

But what it does do is make our dissatisfaction with politics “as they are now” known in a very real manner, both to those ousted, those elected, and, most importantly, the party apparartchik working behind them. The hope is that this works in such a way that they start attempting to keep tabs on what *we* want done, rather than us having to keep tabs on what *they* are doing. Because, let’s be honest, most people simply aren’t doing that.

James Connors

If politics are meaningful it requires a sense of appreciation for what exists as our society; I cannot see that this Harper government does anything meaningful toward moving the nation forward. More’s the pity.
Anonymous

The parties hold the purse of political financing and the leaders sign, or not, the nominations. Small wonder the MPs and candidates think the master is the party and its leader.

Further I think the cabinet should not be part of the caucus – and the Senators should also not be part of the caucus.
Anonymous

Why is it that writers and historians are continually asking US why we don’t know these things?

Why aren’t these things taught in schools, written and spoken about in our media, promoted in our national life?

Why is it that we can be members of a peaceful prosperous advanced western country and yet have no idea of how we got here, or what we want to do next?

Our identity has devolved into some pop culture schlock about moose and maple syrup and hockey games, with never a thought to anything deeper than that.

What have we done wrong, what have we done right, what have we developed or created as a nation that’s part of a global family? What are our contributions to knowledge, democracy, progress?

Our political life has devolved to the same style as a hockey game….what do the polls say? Who’s winning? Who can be jeered at? Hairstyles, clothes, mannerisms, moves….and goofs and hits.

Nothing about ‘where are we going’, or ‘what are we trying to achieve’ or ‘where are the policies to do that’? Just a check list of candies, and candies promised….and gotcha moments to dissect.

We don’t know anything about ourselves.

And….
Why is it that writers and historians are continually asking US why we don’t know these things?