It is a debate that goes back at least 250 years and that is as current as the 2004 federal election campaign.
When voters elect an MP to Parliament, what are they electing – an independent voice for local issues, a team player in a larger political machine or an individual thinker with a mandate from the people to make the best decisions possible?
The most famous answer was given in 1777 by British Whig MP John Burke, who told his Bristol electors in a celebrated letter that he owed them not just blind representation, but also his intelligent judgment on how to vote on issues.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Political theorists have long cited this letter as a keystone definition of intelligent democratic representation. Voters were less impressed, voting him out of office a few years later.
Last week in Manitoba, two rookie Liberal candidates were in their own way musing about the same timeless question.
Peter Epp, an engaging candidate in Provencher riding, used an interesting analysis to explain away his lack of detailed agricultural knowledge. It is better to figure out if voters’ stated desires can be accommodated within the system than to campaign as an expert, he said.
“I don’t even know all the questions, never mind all the answers,” he said. “I’m a real believer in the process of government and making it work. I don’t believe you are well served electing an oracle who has all the answers.”
Two constituencies west, in Brandon-Souris, Liberal Murray Downing argued that as a politician, he is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled. It wasn’t clear whether he thinks the party or constituents hold the dipper.
During an all-candidates’ meeting, same-sex marriage was raised and Downey refused to state a personal view, urging voters to tell him what to think.
“My point of view? I don’t have one anymore.”
In a later interview, he made the same argument on the gun registry.
“I have learned in this business what I think is irrelevant,” he said when pressed for a personal opinion. “I can tell you the Liberal party position is that the registry will remain. I am asking the people to tell me what they want me to say about that.”
The flaw in that argument is that constituents never speak with one voice.
Faced with a divided electorate on almost every question, how does an MP decide – the party position, the perceived constituent majority position or personal opinion?
In the last Parliament, it worked both ways.
Brandon-Souris Conservative MP Rick Borotsik presumably defied majority constituent opinion and most fellow Conservative MPs by supporting same-sex marriage. Toronto Liberal MP and physician Carolyn Bennett wept as she voted with the government and against her own convictions and constituents on hepatitis C compensation.
Canada’s political system has evolved into one of the most disciplined in the world with MPs expected to almost always toe the party line.
Both Liberal leader Paul Martin and Conservative leader Stephen Harper have vowed to give individual MPs more freedom on most parliamentary votes.
Which means they would like to throw the age-old question back to MPs – party puppet, constituency mouthpiece or lone ranger?
