Case of Proven vs Shiny (Democracy edition)

Forgiveness, please, as today’s post is political. But after 40 odd-years involvement, it seems time for a tribute to parliamentary democracy as it is.

To paraphrase Churchill: our system is not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives. It is a form of governance that has served us well, protected from demagogues and largely prevented extremism. Perfect, no. Anomalies, yes.

Consider the contrast of Canadian national leaders over the past half-century to the United States and this country has largely come out ahead. And it is the system that has helped to forge those checks and balances, a system that derives power by directly electing representatives. The prime minister or the premier is able to function by having support of MPs or MLAs – lose that, lose power. See Bill Vander Zalm, Margaret Thatcher and Joe Clark for examples.

Here in British Columbia, the current premier did not win the most seats or votes. Instead, he has support from the majority of those who possess a seat in the legislature. It’s the system.

Growing up in Ontario, minority governments were not the rarity they are on the west coast. Bill Davis, the pipe smoking Progressive Conservative from Brampton, served nearly half of his 14 years as premier leading a minority government. Arguably, David Peterson’s best years at the helm of a Liberal government were the first two conducted as a minority. Federally, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper all led with minorities.

So it works. But a hunger to find something different – which is natural – persists – even in the face of proof that new is not necessarily better.

British Columbia has, twice, had referendums on whether to change from a stable system to a newer, albeit, shinier one. We are about to face a third.

There are several reasons the current system, ultimately, is preferable to the proposed multiple-choice options being offered. Opposition to change, from my perspective, is long-standing. This isn’t about the current alignment in the Legislature; it’s about unnecessarily embracing something that is more flawed.

After 30 years as a reporter/editor and now staffer, it can be said with certainty: elected representatives take the job seriously, work damn hard on behalf of everyone who walks through the constituency office doors and no one is checking party memberships. Part of this is intrinsically in the make-up of those who run – they want to help, no matter their partisan allegiance. But there’s a second part: they are elected directly and are accountable to that same group. Answerable every election cycle, but also every day at the café, the ballpark, walking down the street or at their child’s school.

What is being proposed will take that away, in a fashion that looks trendy but ultimately will not serve anyone well (kinda like when overalls were cool).

Larger ridings will make the connection even more tenuous than it already is. The link between elected and those who elect needs to be strengthened, not weakened. There are some British Columbia ridings that currently take days to traverse; making them bigger will only aggravate the situation.

However, the most insidious justification given is the idea of taking power away from parties and handing it back to the people by selecting your representative from a list curated by political parties. Think about that. Bigger ridings and at least one MLA that has no knowledge of your community and no allegiance to anyone but the patrons who appointed them. A resident of Nelson, Prince George or Port Hardy represented by someone picked from a list created in Burnaby or Victoria.

And on the theme of every vote counts – not under any of the myriad of options being proposed in British Columbia. The Attorney General has proposed a threshold must be met, which means only the three parties currently represented in the legislature would qualify.

There is also the odd proposition of a party being unable to elect a single person to represent a community but still having a significant numbers of MLAs (selected from the party-approved list). Look to New Zealand, the current prime minister was put into office with the support of an anti-immigration party whose entire parliamentary caucus is appointed.

Peddled, too often, is the fiction that MLAs are complete puppets of premiers and bereft of any influence. From experience and reading history, it is possible to attest this is not true. Yes, MLAs support agendas they run on and accept there will be compromise; but a caucus that is lost means the boss is toast. British Columbia is not as brutal as Australia in exercising it, but it’s definitely a factor in leaders taking own version of walk in the snow.

And MLAs can do that because the ones who ultimately decide their fate are voters. They are not beholden to the party apparatchiks who have selected them. Parties and the non-elected leadership will strengthen their hold on power, not reduce it.

Equally disturbing, though, is the process for changing the system. No threshold on turnout, no elevated majority for passage (most stratas require two-thirds majority, as does the BC NDP constitution) and a promise to reveal all the details later.

It is like someone has determined you might be cranky at work and promises a new opportunity. What is it? just take the job and all the details will be revealed later. That is absurd. When Gordon Campbell proposed changes it was done by Citizen Assembly, the politicians removed from the equation. The electorate was trusted to know the details before voting for an aspiration.

Having worked for three members of executive council in two provinces, a respect for the imperfect system has developed. Once, a deputy minister explained why staff wouldn’t call a minister by first name: ‘It’s about the position, it’s about who holds the office, it’s not about you.’

That has always stuck. John Horgan, when bumped into in the halls, is greeted with ‘Hello, Premier.’ His cabinet ministers afforded the same respect. It’s about what the positions represent. Changing the system deserves the same respect.

And the current system – which allows for stable, representative, elected governments – is worthy of respect and support, even if it’s not shiny and new. Why? It works.