I swear if I get one more email asking me to sign a petition to save democracy in Canada, or read another comment on the crisis in the government, I'm going to start bleeding from my ears. Regardless of what you may feel about the players or the parties, and personally I think they are all bounders, rascals and scallywags, what is happening in Ottawa is part of our system of government.
Minority Governments are frequently brought down by their opposition in Parliament. Usually, but not always, that leads to an election. The Governor General asks the other parties if they can form a government. If they can then they form the government until such time as they are brought down by a vote of no confidence.
It is interesting that when the opposition doesn't bring down a government they are often portrayed as "weak" or fearful of an election, and when they do well its a crisis. As to the change in policies or governance that may come from a swing in power I'll leave that to people who are better equipped, and quite frankly care more.
Personally I think it is just a fine example of what is wrong with our system of government, and that is that it is a Party system. I've said before that the Party system is the biggest impediment to democracy in our country, and that we'd be far better served by a consensus style of government. There could still be votes on non confidence but they would be against individuals, such as an elected Prime Minister, not against a Government. Minority Governments would not exist, we could elect the best people for our constituencies, and then maybe things would get done in this country.
Comments
11 responses
Hurrah! It’s nice to hear that someone else with experience in a region that uses consensus-style government thinks that its use at the national level is long overdue.
Maybe we should start a Facebook group?!
I have to completely disagree with you. My opinion is that consensus government is just as screwed up, if not more, than the party system.
There are two main problems as I see it, here in the NWT.
1. Because of the lack of parties, people are forced to vote for candidates based their opinions on issues. There is no coherent platform put forward, and no ability to vote based on a vision of the future for our territory.
Once this group of “mavericks” are elected, because they belong to no party, they then spend up to six months (see recent experience in the NWT) trying to decide on their “strategic” vision or plan for the territory. This means that the government is working towards nothing but developing some wishy-washy document that everybody can agree to that really says nothing other than “we will try to make the NWT better”. Vague and useless.
2. Because there are no parties, it makes it harder to hold politicians accountable. They make no promises before being elected, because they really have no idea what the Premier or Cabinet will decide to do. Come the next election, how does the voting public evaluate their success or failure. They cannot. Unless they judge it on whether their MLA responded quick enough when they complained about their cousin being booted for public housing, or not getting enough SFA.
AND now that I think about it there is a 3.
3. There is no credible opposition! No one to hold the cabinet responsible. When you take an honest look at the whole system, it is all about power. Who has what power and how can they get more. In order to ensure that you get what you need (more power – a possible seat on cabinet eventually) you have to be careful not to rock the boat. Not oppose too much. After looking at the situation in the NWT, you will note that the two most coherent and vocal MLA’s that might be considered opposition (Groenewegen and Ramsay) have been passed over for cabinet positions repeatedly by their fellow MLAs.
Consensus is not the be all and end all of politics. All it does is move the jockeying from the floor of the house to the backrooms, and lead to decreased accountability in a government with no vision.
Phewph. My two cents.
Kia ora Clare,
Please forgive my ignorance, but is Consensus the same, or near, to First Past the Post – where the highest percentage of votes wins? And is the Party system similar to our NZ MMP, where each person gets two votes, a party vote and a local constituency vote, and any party recieving 5% of the total vote gets seats in the government?
Cheers,
Robb
If only that would help MM. Unfortunately change has to come from the very people who will resist it the most, our elected representatives.
Thanks for your thoughts Amy
1) I think that this is actually one of the great strengths of the consensus model: That we vote on individual candidates based on their grasp, opinions, or visions of teh issues that surround first the constituency and secondly the country/province/territory as a whole. Because of the Party system, and the idea that we are electing a PM/Premier with our election of our MP, we often don’t vote for the best candidate, because of the leader of her/his party.
Vagueness and uselessness are not unique to consensus governments, but more to this idea that everyone must be satisfied, even when that is rarely something that can be achieved.
2) Again my take is it is easier to hold individuals accountable in a consensus government. How do we hold our MPs accountable? By electing them. I’m less likely to keep my MP around if he/she isn’t doing a good job if their election isn’t tied to electing a Party who I happen to agree with (or more likely who I think is the lessor of the evils I’m presented with). A recall mechanism (even though they are frought with peril) is another way of making the individuals accountable, as would be a strong ethics mechanism.
There is a credible opposition in that without a party the MPs would be free to vote as they please. They would be the ones to work with the government to make the legislation the best it could be, and if it isn’t then they vote against it. The problem with not opposing the government exists now, only it exists withing Parties. MPs (except in rare occasions when they are “freed” to vote with their conscious) have to toe the party line. If not they’ll be kicked from caucus and they will also not get a cabinet position and will decrease the likelihood of being re-elected. Right now very few independents are elected, the vast majority are those who have left parties to sit as independents.
The recent Nunavut election shows that those who rocked the boat in “opposition” can be rewarded with cabinet positions. Witness Hunter Tootoo. It was clear from this election that people wanted change, and they elected many new people, and that message went right to the Premiers desk and MLAs elected a new Premier.
Many of the problems that you have pointed out with consensus governments actually stem from the size, both of the governments and our populations.
Hey Robb,
A consensus style of government is what two of our territorial governments operate on. There are no political parties, individuals all run for office as independents as it were. Once a slate of MLAs have been elected they choose a speaker, Premier, and then Cabinet members. In the case of Nunavut the cabinet members are elected as a group and then the elected Premier chooses what portfolios they will be assigned.
Excellent thoughts, both Amy and Clare. I supose the greatest fault in government is the people themselves. Party or no, there is always jockeying for power. However, the party system is a lot like competitive team sports – and certainly the last few elections have turned into nasty win-at-all-cost battles that have resulted in Minority governments that can’t function because the parties are too focused on winning the next election by making the other team look bad. So, I agree with Clare. The Party System is so divisive that the MP’s can’t function in their role without a severe conflict of interest (making their party look good even if its at the cost of the best interests of Canada)and they are forced to toe the party line – even if it doesn’t sit well with their own constituants.
On the up side, hopefully this exercise in democracy, regardless of its results, will educate more people about how our system works – so perhaps that will encourage them to vote in the next election.
Amy H., Thanks for sharing your thoughts and concerns with the consensus-style system. I see that Clare left a pretty lengthy response, so I’m going to keep mine a bit shorter. (but not much).
As we have seen in the NWT on more than one occasion, cabinet is held accountable by the Premier and regular MLAs, sometimes in the form of expulsion from cabinet. The Premier can be held accountable in the same manner.
Those who put their name forward as Premier have an opportunity to outline their “platform” to the MLAs. While it’s not ideal in the sense that the electorate does not get to choose the Premier (and his/her platform), I have always found that the MLAs (who are only accountable to their constituents and not to a party line) are very good about soliciting feedback from their constituents. They are free to support what their constituents want and are free to vote down what their constituents don’t want. Legislation is usually debated openly and in a civil manner – not just opposed because it’s the other party’s idea. Similarly, any MLA can bring forward legislation to be debated in the Legislative Assembly. Likewise, any MLA can oppose changes that are being proposed by Cabinet (like sales taxes, for example) and force them to re-think their actions. It takes longer, but often results in a better solution.
I, too, have seen competent MLAs who “speak up” get passed over for cabinet positions, but not everyone can be in a cabinet position. If they’re not getting appointed to cabinet, it’s usually for a good reason (like, the other MLAs recognizing their ability to hold the government accountable OR that they’re difficult to work with – I’m not saying that’s the case with either Groenewegen or Ramsay, but there’s usually a good reason.
So sad, but so true. Their only real objective of a political party is to ensure its own survival.
Can’t blame a guy for dreaming though, can you?
Is this good timing to illustrate a point or what?
N.W.T. MLAs to discuss alleged affair involving premier
N.W.T. MLAs to discuss alleged affair involving premier
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/12/03/nwt-roland.html