On June 12, 2014, the Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal Party was not only able to hold onto power, but was even able to secure a majority government. I don’t want to talk about that. What I want to talk about is the natural evolution of government and democracy.
I attended the MPP candidate debate at the Great Hall in the SLC on May 28. While listening to the candidates talk about the issues, it occurred to me that in our current system, it didn’t really matter what our MPP candidates thought, because they would almost always vote the way the party voted anyway. Today our parliaments are comprised of three to four parties with different, often very different ideas on how best to govern Canada. They are locked in an eternal, unwinnable battle to push their agendas through deadlock and bureaucracy. But when these parties are duking it out for the approval to govern all of Canada, the MPs and MPPs stop representing the people in favour of party loyalty.
Long before Europeans, or for that matter any Eurasians, set foot upon the shores of what we now call North America, the Aboriginals had their own way of government. Many of the First Nations tribes governed through consensus, where every person in the tribe had a say, and the decisions made ensured that everyone was satisfied. It was government through compromise. Our seventh Prime Minister, Wilfrid Laurier, tried to govern through compromise, and all he got was the spite and anger of all the disparate groups he tried to please. Clearly at some population threshold, compromise starts to break down. When the group gets big enough you can’t please everyone.
The ancient Greeks are even more famous than the First Nations for their direct democratic system, probably because they were located in Europe. In Athens, every adult male citizen of the city (which was actually only about 15% of the population) was allowed to vote on any decision. They did not have to vote for someone to represent them: they just represented themselves. Ignoring the fact that women, slaves, and foreigners were not allowed to vote, the system was good, and everyone (who mattered anyway) was happy, except for the rich oligarchs who wanted more say because they were rich. But again, this system also has a population threshold. Can you imagine trying to collect the vote of everyone who can vote in Canada for every decision made? Not only are there over 30 million of us, we’re also scattered over almost ten million square kilometres. You might have been able to figure out that direct democracy in a country like Canada, or other countries like Russia, China, and the United States, would take way too long to even be able to make any decisions within a reasonable timeframe.
The next time democracy was tried in any reasonable extent was in the late 1700s, with the great democratic experiment that was the United States of America (OkfinetherewasEnglandbuttheydontcountbecausetheirskindasuckedinitially). The USA was bicameral, with a house of representatives and a senate. Initially the system was like the Athenian system, except replacing citizenship with land ownership, and instead of direct democracy, people elected someone to represent their needs and interests in government. As time went on though, the system was expanded until women, African Americans, and even naturalized citizens could vote. The American system is the standard to which almost all other democracies in the world base themselves off of, with variations. For example, in Canada we only have one effective house.
And yet this system still has so many flaws. Initially representatives actually represented their area in different issues. Then parties were developed because people thought that it was easier to push your own interests through if other representatives supported them as well – and they were right. In my opinion the formation of parties is the natural evolution of a democratic system, and the idea of the party in many ways makes government more efficient and streamlined. But with the advent of the party system, other things were sacrificed, for example true representation which I’ve mentioned several times in the article. In addition, the evolution of parties has also severely reduced the merit and value of actual representatives. Often MPs can’t or don’t want to vote in favour of the interests of their area because they’re worried about voting against the party. Being an MP was initially about representing your district, but now it’s about representing your party. Another flaw of democracy is just how hard it is to get anything done in one. Trying to do anything is very likely to upset someone or some group, and they will do all they can to stop you from doing something. Parties have actually helped to improve the situation, but it doesn’t solve the problem, as deadlock can still happen. In Canada it happens because we have more than two parties, and in America it happens because you need two thirds of the vote to pass a bill; a simple majority is not enough to get anything through. You know what form of government doesn’t suffer from deadlock? A dictatorship or an absolute monarchy. But we obviously can’t have that due to all the potential for power abuse with no checks and balances there. No joke, dictatorships are bad news, kids.
Democracy ain’t easy. I don’t have the answers for solving the problems outlined (poorly) in this rant. That said, I think a (tentative) step in the right direction is to make parties less institutional. This would allow MPs to more freely move between parties and thus align him or herself with a party that represents her constituents. Another thing that needs to happen is that people need to get off their asses and start caring more, if only by letting your MP know what your thoughts are.
That’s some food for the thought. I don’t give answers, I just like asking questions.
Leave a Reply