So Bob Rae is going to step aside and allow Michael Ignatieff to become undisputed leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Rae may be doing nothing more than reading the writing on the wall, or he may be motivated by a genuine sense of the kind of duty and honour that motivates true statesmen; either way, he did the right thing giving Canada a shot at something like an organized and effective opposition come January 26th.
Well done Bob!
But Bob, in doing the right thing (and earlier while resisting doing it) did you have to haul out and swear fealty to that hoary old Canadian tradition of 'Party Democracy'? I'm referring to the practice of having the Party membership select its parliamentary leader entirely outside of parliament. And lest anyone think I'm picking on the Liberals, it should be pointed out that this practice is (to the best of my knowledge) universal in Canada. (In fact, most Canadians seem to think there isn't any alternative). The Liberals are actually somewhat archaic and hold conventions to select leaders. Other parties have a one-member, one-vote policy, conducting leadership elections by phone or over the internet. The Liberal method at least ensures that elected members have a stronger (although far from sufficient) voice in the process.
"But that's democratic," you say. Is it? That's certainly what the parties want you to think. But let me ask: who do you, a Canadian voter actually vote for? You vote for someone to occupy a seat in Parliament and represent your views to the government. As a fair-minded person, you expect that person to be more aware of the complexities of the issues of the day than you have time or perhaps inclination to be. You expect her to be sensitive to the needs of your riding and mediate those needs with the needs of other groups, regions, or interests (don't laugh). What you probably don't want is a seat-warming, ready-aye-ready ignoramus simply toting and spouting the party line at every opportunity and jumping up to vote as told by The Party. Sound like anyone you know? That is what this system encourages.
You see, the elected MP enters Parliament hobbled. The Leader is all powerful and cannot be removed by the people he actually leads, only by a shadowy backroom (as it appears in the case of the Liberals) or by a vast and diffuse mass of The Membership. Our thoughtful representative can't apply much real pressure on the leader in this situation (yes, she can argue her positions in caucus). If the leadership, which answers only to the party, isn't inclined to listen, it won't.
Now I admit that much of the time this doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Most members know and support the party that nominates them to office. Once in office they support most of the policies their leadership proposes and where they aren't comfortable with any of those policies they make peace with them as part of the essential give-and-take compromise of real governing. But lest anyone think it never matters, I have two words for them: Stephane Dion. Here's a guy who was elected leader of the so-called natural governing party of Canada with almost no support from the then more numerous party caucus. How's that working out guys?
By all accounts most of the current caucus wants Michael Ignatieff. I bet that works out much better for them in the next election.
No comments:
Post a Comment