EIGHTEENTH century British politician and philosopher Edmund Burke famously told his electors in Bristol (who then defeated him) that he owed them his industry and loyalty but also his judgment.
In other words, he would make judgments as their MP that took into account what he knew and believed, as well as what they thought and wanted him to do.
More than 200 years later, Reform party founder and sometime political philosopher Preston Manning said less famously that politicians should represent their constituents. Period.
Voters elected well-paid vote counters who gauged what the majority wanted said and said it. Try to persuade them to your view and if you lose, park your convictions at the door and become a political parrot.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
It was populism that led to the goofy political ideas of direct referenda, voter recall of errant MPs and democracy as expressed through the hysteria of open mouth shows on radio.
At its first policy convention last March, the new Conservative Party of Canada wisely voted to dump many of those Reform direct democracy principles that assumed public policy issues are simple Ñ she’s guilty or she’s not, no extenuating circumstances. If she is, hang her Ñ and politicians paid to wade through the complexities of issues should not be tainted by nuance.
Last week, the House of Commons displayed a fine example of why the Conservatives were wise to jettison the direct democracy idea.
Vancouver-area Independent MP Chuck Cadman, a Reformer from the 1990s, held the fate of the Liberal government in his hands. The government would fall if he voted against it and survive if he voted for it.
As a conservative Reformer who got into politics to toughen the justice system after his teenage son was murdered but who also bought into Reform and Canadian Alliance policies, he was faced with a Liberal government spending money as fast as it can tax it, doing everything it can to stay in power and promoting issues such as same sex marriage that presumably would not sit well with constituents.
On the other side, he had a majority of his constituents say they did not want an election.
Let’s see, a government violating many of my core beliefs or my constituents who do not want the inconvenience of another trip to the polls. Sorry fellas, gotta stick with my constituents.
The Liberals survived to spend still more.
That’s the problem with populism and direct democracy. What question are people responding to when they respond?
To the people in Cadman’s riding that has been Reform-Alliance since 1993: Do you want an election now that will cost $300 million and before the full extent of Liberal skullduggery in Quebec is known through the Gomery report? No.
Do you want to support continuation of a Liberal-NDP alliance that will bring in same sex marriage legislation, billions of dollars in extra spending and other expensive tactics to keep Paul Martin in power until he thinks it is to his advantage to call an election campaign? Uuuummm.
That’s the problem with populism and referenda. What’s the question?
Cadman, formerly a rock and roll guitar player, may have personally voted yes to the second question.
Did most of his constituents know that was the question?
