Rethinking Canadian politics, parties and leaders

I’ve been thinking a lot about the recent Canadian Federal election in the past few weeks, both in terms of the result and what it says about Canadian politics.

Going into the federal election the most important thing for me, and apparently many others, was that we not elect another Conservative government. There was a tremendous amount of energy spent trying to trade votes and figure out where not to waste a vote. For me, it was pretty irrelevant since my riding was a forgone conclusion, but for many others it was serious business.

Then I changed my mind.

I think the turning point for me was reading a discussion between two NDP strategists posted to the Globe and Mail online on November 7th called “What now for the NDP?” In it, Les Campbell and Brian Topp exchange thoughts on the future of the party.

What struck me most about the exchange was how bland and generic the prescriptions for renewal were. A perfect example is Les Campbell’s thoughts on future NDP policy directions:

The policy renewal should have started long ago, but here are my two cents on where NDP policy should be heading:

• Careful stewardship of public resources to support a thoughtful array of social programs without higher taxes;
• Strong on environmental protection, but not so radically that key resource industries are threatened without alternative jobs being available;
• No undue regard to special interests, including organized labour;
• A caring country with national standards and priorities but with local control and respect for provincial jurisdiction.
• Support for Canada’s military – because unless we meet, or preferably exceed, our self-defence and international commitments, we’ll never have the prestige and clout we want on the international stage;
• An increased military commitment to Afghanistan that will respond to President Obama’s inevitable requests for assistance while emphasizing development and reconstruction over fighting.

It would be hard to tell, by looking at this, that it was intended to be an NDP platform. Indeed, it would be awfully hard for a voter to make a choice come election day, given that every party’s platform would be, at it’s essence, virtually identical.

Mr. Tropp responds with his own take on the road ahead:

You are thinking about what to do about the Liberals and the Greens. We should add the Bloc Quebecois, another chess piece, currently occupying almost 50 crucial seats.

In my view there are two roads forward with regard to these parties.

We can work to collectively defeat them in an election, or we can try to find some way to build a common front with some or all of them.

It seems to me that the problem with both of these approaches is that it mistakes public policy and the interests of Canadian’s with political parties. It should be pretty clear at this point that Canadians do not agree which party represents the best interests of Canada and Canadians. So why should we enforce artificial, inauthentic choices on Canadians? Does an electoral system necessarily entail one party “defeating” another? Or should there be a role for all parties in parliament?

The problem here, as is common with most policy problems these days, is we have forgotten what the real goal of the electoral system is: To represent the views of Canadians in the governing and policy process. Now, as it stands, the system serves as a kind of no-holds-barred cage match to choose the ultimate political party, invalidating the views of the majority of Canadians in the process. Competition between political parties was meant to be a means to an end – a way to aggregate the political views of Canadians – but has become an end in itself, a forum where we wait to see which party is victorious, with no expectation that the result will in any way meaningfully reflect the political will of Canadians.

So, if this is true, what do we do?

Well, the first thing we need to do is get Canadians to stand up, speak out and demand electoral reform. Without changes to our system to ensure that it more accurately reflects how Canadians actually vote, elections will continue to be defined by political parties and their absurd strategizing. Second, we need to be insistent that uniting political parties doesn’t serve anyone but the political parties themselves. When the Progressive Conservatives were swallowed up into the new Conservative Party, Canada lost an important voice for a moderate, sensible conservatism. If the parties on the left – possibly the Liberals, NDP and Greens -  were to merge, it would send a message that the nuances that the individual parties brought to the process were not important, that voting for the NDP or Greens was essentially the same thing when, quite obviously, it is not. The only people served by such a merger would be powerful people within those parties, whose likelyhood of securing a cushy MP’s pension would be greatly increased.

So, in this season of continuous election analysis, ask yourself what is the purpose of our electoral system? Is it to create jobs for election strategists and communications professionals? Or is it to give you a voice and provide a way to have your views represented in government?

If you think it’s the latter, then things need to change. And when it comes to change, there is no better time than the present.