From: alanw@bnr.ca (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Reply-To: alanw@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa ON Canada
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:07:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.160401.5947@bcars6a8.bnr.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.081358.21091@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
|> 
|> [...]  That being said, I'd love to see
|> some way of "de-partying" party politics in *this* country.
...
|> |Where's the comfort in sitting and taking it for 5 years as we do here?
|> |In Canada, the Brian Mulroneys and Bob Raes can run amok for 5 years with
|> |only the courts to answer to.
...
|> |People routinely
|> |call their congressmen to ask them to vote a certain way. If *I* call
|> |my MP or MLA, *BIG DEAL*!!! He's probably a backbencher with no clout.
|> |My representation becomes worthless, as my MP or MLA has to vote with
|> |party lines, which are controlled by some clique of cabinet ministers.
...
|> On the other hand, the MP/MPP/MLA can certainly use this information in
|> policy determination - because they still have to face you, the voter,
|> next time around.  And quite possibly less than 4 years apart.  They
|> do care.  Because they know if their voters are sufficiently against
|> something, it will hurt their chances next time.  I think the primary
|> difference between our and their systems in this regard is simply that
|> Canadians haven't gotten into the habit of doing this.
...

The reason that a majority government winds up being like a 5 year dictatorship
in Canada is not the way Parliament is set up, it is the way it is applied in
practice.  Party dicipline is much stronger in Canada than either the US
or the UK, with the result that the average member is more or less irrelevant.
There isn't any threat of a majority government being defeated on any particular
vote, since it is extremely rare that anyone defects from the party line.
Supposedly, our MP is our local representative in the House of Commons.  In
practice, our MP winds up being the government representative in the local area.
Policy is dictated by the party to the MP, rather than from the people to the
MP.  As noted above, maybe we don't exert enough pressure on our MPs.

The recent party revolt that ousted Margaret Thatcher in the UK happened
because the MPs there decided that their party was becoming unelectable.
British MPs are more independent that their Canadian counterparts, and that's why
we haven't seen a caucus revolt here.

Voting independently is almost treated like a crime by Canadian party whips.
Any MP who doesn't toe the party line in the House of Commons will find their
office relocated by the party whip to a tiny cubicle in a remote building.

In many countries, the lack of a majority government results in ineffective
government.  In Canada, some of the most responsive and responsible governments
have been miniority governments -- because this is one case where the eyes
of the MPs are on the voters.  One example is the Liberal - NDP minority in
Ontario from '85 to '87.  After endless PC majorities that avoided doing anything
to rock the boat, there were two years of productive government.  Then, the
Liberals got a majority, and it was back to "government as usual".

The Canadian Parliamentary system wouldn't be that bad, if only we could crack
party discipline.

-- 
Alan Williams        |  Bell-Northern Research Ltd.   | personal opinions only
alanw@bnr.ca         |  Ottawa, Ont. CANADA  K1Y 4H7  |
Newsgroups: can.general