Opinion
GIVE the Canadian Alliance credit for this: it has put the issue of MP accountability to their voters between elections clearly on the election agenda.
The idea that voters only have a say at election time and between votes, and that an MP is beholden primarily to the party agenda, is a democratic affront.
The current prime minister, Jean ChrŽtien, has turned the idea of necessary party discipline into an iron rule and fist. MPs who have dared defy party policy because their constituents were opposed have been disciplined or expelled.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Under ChrŽtien, the MP role seems solely one of convincing local voters of government wisdom, rather than to inform party brass about voter wisdom.
Now, take away some credit given earlier to the Alliance: the solutions it offers are at best na•ve and at worst cynical.
CA candidates would have us believe that once elected, they will go to Ottawa, assess an Alliance government proposal on an issue, consult constituents and if there is a conflict, vote with the constituents.
And if voters don’t like the way their MP is performing, 25 percent could sign a petition and a new election would be required.
If voters did not think the government was dealing with their issues, a petition carrying the names of as few as 400,000 Canadians (just over one percent of the population) could trigger a national referendum on the issue.
That is a low threshold that could produce a steady stream of referenda on divisive issues. CA leader Stockwell Day has disavowed the three percent threshold but it is in a bill he has promised to support as prime minister.
So would all this give voters more say? Yes, if voters enjoy the chaos and uncertainty of unstable government.
Parliamentary government in the 21st century is a system of parties disciplined enough to make compromises in pursuit of larger goals, not loose coalitions of MPs calling home each day to see what they should do.
It is a na•ve and American view to imagine Parliament as a forum where constituents or special interest groups can pressure MPs to ride their horse.
Too much discipline is dictatorshi-10-P. Too little is political chaos.
William Aberhart, the founding father of Alberta’s Social Credit movement and the grandfather of the Canadian Alliance, understood that.
He won government in 1935 with a promise of MLA independence and voter recall. Within years, as his Social Credit government made tough choices and voters became disgruntled and began recall movements, the measure was abandoned in favor of traditional parliamentary discipline.
Preston Manning, leader of the Reform party and senior statesman of the Alliance, understood that. He disciplined MPs whose political incorrectness hurt party prospects and orchestrated the ouster of renegade Manitoba MP Jake Hoeppner.
Day understood that when he was government whip in Alberta, and maintained an amazingly uniform Tory voting pattern in favor of the government.
Maybe all those Tory MLAs were clones or all government measures were infallible. Or maybe the CA promise leans more to the cynical than the na•ve.
