"Political parties don't work when people just announce what they are doing and expect everyone else to follow."
-Tony Abbott
It turns out it is super easy to do the job of a newspaper editor. Well, at least the part of it that involves thinking up corny wordplay for the title of pieces. In this case, the title is referring to Michael Chong, the courageous Member of Parliament from Wellington-Halton Hills, Ontario. This crusading gentleman has put forward the quite interesting Bill C-559. This bill, short-titled The Reform Act, 2013, would reduce the stranglehold of party leaders while massively increasing the rights of MPs, something many Canadians feel is long overdue.
Personally, I don't even like the idea of political parties. There was nothing originally about them in any of the constitutions of Anglo tradition. They force elected representatives to often go against the wishes of their constituents in order to fulfill a larger party strategy. However, they also are basically inevitable. If we don't have overt alliances between candidates who cooperate and share resources, we will have secret ones. This will put those who try to go without them at a distinct disadvantage anyway. So parties are here to stay. Can we make them more democratic? Chong hopes so.
Essentially, Chong's bill would edit the Elections Act and Parliament of Canada Act in some pretty major ways. It would provide a pretty substantial rebalancing of powers between the Prime Minister's Office and Parliament as well as reducing the power of opposition leaders to control their own MPs. It would do this through via three main changes:
First, since 1970, any party riding choosing a candidate to run under their political party's umbrella has needed the signature of the party leader. This meant no one could run for office except as an independent without the boss' permission. This requirement would be removed, allowing the choice of candidate to ultimately lie with the party riding association through 'nomination officers' that they elect.
Second, the House of Commons caucuses would be allowed to trigger a leadership review vote if 15 percent of the caucus decides to. If so, a secret ballot vote would be triggered which could replace the leader of the party if a simple 50 percent plus one of the caucus desired it. For the layman, a caucus just refers to a group of parliament members from within the same party. The Senate, being unelected, would not be included in these votes. Technically, there was nothing stopping parties from doing this before. For example, Joe Clark had a leadership review pushed on him. However, it would formalize this power which has previously been rarely employed, likely making it more common.
Third, the Commons caucuses would also be able to review their own MPs and choose to eject or readmit them with the same voting procedure, 15 percent to trigger and 50 percent plus one to confirm. This right will no longer be possessed by the party leader. In addition, if anyone had been ejected from the caucus but was selected by the nomination officer to run and then got elected, they would automatically be reinstated.
Some people have suggested that this bill is a revolt against the overtly caucus-controlling Stephen Harper. Others say it specifically isn't since it wouldn't actually take effect until after the next election. Either way, I suspect he appreciates the timing since it wouldn't make him the only Conservative recently in revolt against his boss' management style that makes the majority of the public's elected representatives into little more than rubber stamps. That this bill has even a faint hope of passing is only thanks to Harper's style of managing and how the current Senate Spending scandal has weakened his position and credibility.
Canada's Prime Ministers, unlike US Presidents, control the way their party votes in parliament except for rare free-votes. This means our leaders are basically unaccountable and totally free to do what they will when they have a majority. Harper has been seen as taking that a step further and limiting the rights of elected MPs to even discuss issues without the PMO's permission.
You may remember back in March when Conservative MP, Mark Warawa of BC, asked the Speaker of the House of Commons to see if his parliamentary privileges were being violated. What happened is his right to a one-minute statement in the Commons was taken away without explanation. Warawa is an opponent of abortion on the grounds that it is discriminatory against girls due to the prevalence of sex-selective abortions. It's likely he was planning to speak on this and other socially Conservative MPs backed his right to speak freely on it.
Understandably, Harper does not want his party discussing abortion as its fate is essentially already decided in Canada and a no-win issue for Harper. However, it did anger many that their MP was not allowed to represent them on an issue important to them.
You may also remember back in June that the very principled Alberta MP, Brent Rathgeber, left the Conservative caucus. He did this after his bill to publicly release civil-servant salaries was watered down by party leadership. Rathgeber would state:
“I’m obviously very, very disappointed both with the government position and certainly with the [committee’s Conservative] colleagues, many of whom philosophically support this legislation unequivocally, but seemed powerless to resist the instructions that were given to them by the [Prime Minister’s Office], by the whip or wherever the final instructions came from.”
Anyway, regardless of why Chong wants this bill, is it a good one?
Well, yes and no. The general thrust is certainly good. Party leaders should not be all powerful. They should not be allowed to squash internal debate and silence outspoken MPs just to improve election results by making the party appear more unified.
In the case of Justin Trudeau, he was basically chosen as leader of the Liberals through social media. Many of those supporters who were allowed to choose him as leader were not even registered or able to vote for him. This means that Trudeau was chosen by many who were not real party members then and may still not be now. Should he have ultimate power over elected Liberal MPs who have been chosen at the voting booth by the real party faithful? Probably not.
As Andrew Coyne notes, the idea that party leaders should only lead with the confidence of their caucus is a normal one in the Westminster parliamentary tradition. Canada is fairly unique in often allowing leaders to hang onto power over their party even once they've become despised and seen as a liability.
Australia recently saw their Labour Party leader Julia Gillard agree to a vote that would see her removed from her leadership role if she lost. Polls had shown Labour was going to be trounced in the next election and a change was seen as necessary by her party. She lost and promptly stepped down. It might also be worth mentioning she was actually the Prime Minister at the time. The same thing happened with Margaret Thatcher during her days as Prime Minister of Britain. Her party decided to give her the boot and replaced her within the span of a few days. This method may seem extreme to Canadians but it is the norm outside of us, is extremely cost effective, and keeps leaders constantly accountable.
Although having a leader removed from power who was chosen by the party en mass may seem undemocratic, it's important to remember that the MPs choosing to do so are elected. If MPs can't get rid of them then they are unaccountable until another party convention is held which may be quite a while. This also strengthens the MPs position via the leader which is good. Leaders should have to take their caucuses seriously and listen to their complaints and demands.
That being said, some changes to the bill would improve it. The 15% thresh-hold is too low to call a review of leadership vote. It should be raised to at least 25%. With the current division of Commons seats, the Conservatives could have one with 24 members supporting, the NDP with 15, and the Liberals with a measly 6. It's possible that small factions of a party may try and replace their leader with one of their own group just so they could be the new cabinet members with the prestige and perks that come with it. This wouldn't help democracy and would wreak havoc on any parties ability to internally cooperate.
As Chantal Herbert notes, at least three Prime Ministers would probably have seen party mutinies with such a small number needed to force a leadership review vote. Harper would have over his 2006 decision to have a Quebec nation resolution in the House or possibly his continued opposition to discussing abortion laws. Brian Mulroney might have over his support of official bilingualism. Jean Chretien likely would have over his conflict with Paul Martin's group of Libs.
Another issue is that moving leader-choosing power away from delegates or party members to MPs is that choosing the leader may become more regionally determined and unbalanced. Since all areas have some delegates/party members of each party, all areas have a say in determining their leader proportional to their support. With MPs able to determine leadership, some areas will elect no MPs of a certain party due to limited support there and will thus have no say in whether leaders get replaced.
Something would also need to be set-up in the case that a local riding association becomes hijacked and winds up totally in opposition to its parent party. This isn't super likely but could be a major problem. Some system for the party as a whole to take a vote and decertify a specific riding association may be necessary. Obviously the vote would require a large majority, maybe 75-80 percent in order to do so.
There is also the issue of this bill overriding individual party's traditional rights to organize how they see fit. In a way, that is undemocratic and parties should be allowed to organize however they choose. However, no party will individually want to organize in the way this bill suggests unless forced. Giving MPs additional rights to speak their minds and weakening the leaders ability to control their message would weaken a parties electoral chances. They would seem more fragmented, like they actually are, and less lean/mean. That's why it needs to be applied across the board so no one can reject it and gain unfair advantage.
In any case, now is a good time to be pushing the bill. Harper's on the ropes with the Senate scandal and cannot be seen fighting against MP rights. Trudeau and Mulcair won't like it but won't be able to go against it either. They've already suggested they like the general thrust but would like to tweak it which is fair. If they agree to let their people vote on it freely, Harper will have to support it as well.
The MPs will be a little scared voting for it for a couple reasons. First, if it passes, the greater MP freedom from their leader's threats will mean that they really are responsible to their constituents. This costs them plausible deniability to their electorate when they done screwed up. Also, they know that voting for this bill is essentially suggesting they may be open to replacing their leaders. If it fails, the bosses will likely remember how people voted. Like Omar Little from the Wire knows, "You come at the king, you best not miss."
Overall, this will mean a change in how we think about electing our party leaders. It will mean that we really are electing and trusting our MPs, not voting for the leader who will become PM. There will be definitely be serious unintended consequences of the bill in its current form and it will require a lot of intelligent debate.
I'll be honest, I respect fiscal conservatism. Canada needs a healthy dose of it. However, although I've approved of some of the stuff he has gotten done, I'm not a big Harper fan. His leadership style has been poisonous to healthy non-partisan dialogue and has concentrated far too much power in his own PMO office.
The fact the bill is getting all the hype it is and might actually pass proves that others agree with me. There's a certain irony that Stephen Harper may be responsible for decentralizing power within Canada.
I suspect he hasn't failed to notice that.
AS
-Tony Abbott
It turns out it is super easy to do the job of a newspaper editor. Well, at least the part of it that involves thinking up corny wordplay for the title of pieces. In this case, the title is referring to Michael Chong, the courageous Member of Parliament from Wellington-Halton Hills, Ontario. This crusading gentleman has put forward the quite interesting Bill C-559. This bill, short-titled The Reform Act, 2013, would reduce the stranglehold of party leaders while massively increasing the rights of MPs, something many Canadians feel is long overdue.
Personally, I don't even like the idea of political parties. There was nothing originally about them in any of the constitutions of Anglo tradition. They force elected representatives to often go against the wishes of their constituents in order to fulfill a larger party strategy. However, they also are basically inevitable. If we don't have overt alliances between candidates who cooperate and share resources, we will have secret ones. This will put those who try to go without them at a distinct disadvantage anyway. So parties are here to stay. Can we make them more democratic? Chong hopes so.
Essentially, Chong's bill would edit the Elections Act and Parliament of Canada Act in some pretty major ways. It would provide a pretty substantial rebalancing of powers between the Prime Minister's Office and Parliament as well as reducing the power of opposition leaders to control their own MPs. It would do this through via three main changes:
First, since 1970, any party riding choosing a candidate to run under their political party's umbrella has needed the signature of the party leader. This meant no one could run for office except as an independent without the boss' permission. This requirement would be removed, allowing the choice of candidate to ultimately lie with the party riding association through 'nomination officers' that they elect.
Second, the House of Commons caucuses would be allowed to trigger a leadership review vote if 15 percent of the caucus decides to. If so, a secret ballot vote would be triggered which could replace the leader of the party if a simple 50 percent plus one of the caucus desired it. For the layman, a caucus just refers to a group of parliament members from within the same party. The Senate, being unelected, would not be included in these votes. Technically, there was nothing stopping parties from doing this before. For example, Joe Clark had a leadership review pushed on him. However, it would formalize this power which has previously been rarely employed, likely making it more common.
Third, the Commons caucuses would also be able to review their own MPs and choose to eject or readmit them with the same voting procedure, 15 percent to trigger and 50 percent plus one to confirm. This right will no longer be possessed by the party leader. In addition, if anyone had been ejected from the caucus but was selected by the nomination officer to run and then got elected, they would automatically be reinstated.
Some people have suggested that this bill is a revolt against the overtly caucus-controlling Stephen Harper. Others say it specifically isn't since it wouldn't actually take effect until after the next election. Either way, I suspect he appreciates the timing since it wouldn't make him the only Conservative recently in revolt against his boss' management style that makes the majority of the public's elected representatives into little more than rubber stamps. That this bill has even a faint hope of passing is only thanks to Harper's style of managing and how the current Senate Spending scandal has weakened his position and credibility.
Canada's Prime Ministers, unlike US Presidents, control the way their party votes in parliament except for rare free-votes. This means our leaders are basically unaccountable and totally free to do what they will when they have a majority. Harper has been seen as taking that a step further and limiting the rights of elected MPs to even discuss issues without the PMO's permission.
You may remember back in March when Conservative MP, Mark Warawa of BC, asked the Speaker of the House of Commons to see if his parliamentary privileges were being violated. What happened is his right to a one-minute statement in the Commons was taken away without explanation. Warawa is an opponent of abortion on the grounds that it is discriminatory against girls due to the prevalence of sex-selective abortions. It's likely he was planning to speak on this and other socially Conservative MPs backed his right to speak freely on it.
Understandably, Harper does not want his party discussing abortion as its fate is essentially already decided in Canada and a no-win issue for Harper. However, it did anger many that their MP was not allowed to represent them on an issue important to them.
You may also remember back in June that the very principled Alberta MP, Brent Rathgeber, left the Conservative caucus. He did this after his bill to publicly release civil-servant salaries was watered down by party leadership. Rathgeber would state:
“I’m obviously very, very disappointed both with the government position and certainly with the [committee’s Conservative] colleagues, many of whom philosophically support this legislation unequivocally, but seemed powerless to resist the instructions that were given to them by the [Prime Minister’s Office], by the whip or wherever the final instructions came from.”
Anyway, regardless of why Chong wants this bill, is it a good one?
Well, yes and no. The general thrust is certainly good. Party leaders should not be all powerful. They should not be allowed to squash internal debate and silence outspoken MPs just to improve election results by making the party appear more unified.
In the case of Justin Trudeau, he was basically chosen as leader of the Liberals through social media. Many of those supporters who were allowed to choose him as leader were not even registered or able to vote for him. This means that Trudeau was chosen by many who were not real party members then and may still not be now. Should he have ultimate power over elected Liberal MPs who have been chosen at the voting booth by the real party faithful? Probably not.
As Andrew Coyne notes, the idea that party leaders should only lead with the confidence of their caucus is a normal one in the Westminster parliamentary tradition. Canada is fairly unique in often allowing leaders to hang onto power over their party even once they've become despised and seen as a liability.
Australia recently saw their Labour Party leader Julia Gillard agree to a vote that would see her removed from her leadership role if she lost. Polls had shown Labour was going to be trounced in the next election and a change was seen as necessary by her party. She lost and promptly stepped down. It might also be worth mentioning she was actually the Prime Minister at the time. The same thing happened with Margaret Thatcher during her days as Prime Minister of Britain. Her party decided to give her the boot and replaced her within the span of a few days. This method may seem extreme to Canadians but it is the norm outside of us, is extremely cost effective, and keeps leaders constantly accountable.
Although having a leader removed from power who was chosen by the party en mass may seem undemocratic, it's important to remember that the MPs choosing to do so are elected. If MPs can't get rid of them then they are unaccountable until another party convention is held which may be quite a while. This also strengthens the MPs position via the leader which is good. Leaders should have to take their caucuses seriously and listen to their complaints and demands.
That being said, some changes to the bill would improve it. The 15% thresh-hold is too low to call a review of leadership vote. It should be raised to at least 25%. With the current division of Commons seats, the Conservatives could have one with 24 members supporting, the NDP with 15, and the Liberals with a measly 6. It's possible that small factions of a party may try and replace their leader with one of their own group just so they could be the new cabinet members with the prestige and perks that come with it. This wouldn't help democracy and would wreak havoc on any parties ability to internally cooperate.
As Chantal Herbert notes, at least three Prime Ministers would probably have seen party mutinies with such a small number needed to force a leadership review vote. Harper would have over his 2006 decision to have a Quebec nation resolution in the House or possibly his continued opposition to discussing abortion laws. Brian Mulroney might have over his support of official bilingualism. Jean Chretien likely would have over his conflict with Paul Martin's group of Libs.
Another issue is that moving leader-choosing power away from delegates or party members to MPs is that choosing the leader may become more regionally determined and unbalanced. Since all areas have some delegates/party members of each party, all areas have a say in determining their leader proportional to their support. With MPs able to determine leadership, some areas will elect no MPs of a certain party due to limited support there and will thus have no say in whether leaders get replaced.
Something would also need to be set-up in the case that a local riding association becomes hijacked and winds up totally in opposition to its parent party. This isn't super likely but could be a major problem. Some system for the party as a whole to take a vote and decertify a specific riding association may be necessary. Obviously the vote would require a large majority, maybe 75-80 percent in order to do so.
There is also the issue of this bill overriding individual party's traditional rights to organize how they see fit. In a way, that is undemocratic and parties should be allowed to organize however they choose. However, no party will individually want to organize in the way this bill suggests unless forced. Giving MPs additional rights to speak their minds and weakening the leaders ability to control their message would weaken a parties electoral chances. They would seem more fragmented, like they actually are, and less lean/mean. That's why it needs to be applied across the board so no one can reject it and gain unfair advantage.
In any case, now is a good time to be pushing the bill. Harper's on the ropes with the Senate scandal and cannot be seen fighting against MP rights. Trudeau and Mulcair won't like it but won't be able to go against it either. They've already suggested they like the general thrust but would like to tweak it which is fair. If they agree to let their people vote on it freely, Harper will have to support it as well.
The MPs will be a little scared voting for it for a couple reasons. First, if it passes, the greater MP freedom from their leader's threats will mean that they really are responsible to their constituents. This costs them plausible deniability to their electorate when they done screwed up. Also, they know that voting for this bill is essentially suggesting they may be open to replacing their leaders. If it fails, the bosses will likely remember how people voted. Like Omar Little from the Wire knows, "You come at the king, you best not miss."
Overall, this will mean a change in how we think about electing our party leaders. It will mean that we really are electing and trusting our MPs, not voting for the leader who will become PM. There will be definitely be serious unintended consequences of the bill in its current form and it will require a lot of intelligent debate.
I'll be honest, I respect fiscal conservatism. Canada needs a healthy dose of it. However, although I've approved of some of the stuff he has gotten done, I'm not a big Harper fan. His leadership style has been poisonous to healthy non-partisan dialogue and has concentrated far too much power in his own PMO office.
The fact the bill is getting all the hype it is and might actually pass proves that others agree with me. There's a certain irony that Stephen Harper may be responsible for decentralizing power within Canada.
I suspect he hasn't failed to notice that.
AS
No comments:
Post a Comment