I share the concerns of those who lament the “democratic deficit” in Canada. (Indeed, that concern is the subtext of my book "1867: How the Fathers Made a Deal," which in all modesty I commend to you if you care about these issues) Our political system is not serving us well. Governments are not adequately accountable to the people’s representatives. Elections do not fulfill citizens’ desires for effective participation. Parliaments and legislatures seem mostly ineffectual. The political process seems uninviting, maybe even alienating, to many who might otherwise make valuable contributions.
But I’m almost equally concerned by the pablum fed to us by pundits with easy answers and quick fixes. It’s easy to attack the existing Canadian political processes system, for much is wrong with it. But too often proposals for change are presented as if their wisdom is self-evident, as if anyone who would scrutinize them opposes democracy itself.
I'm for democracy. But I’m unimpressed by many of the solutions our pundits and political scientists put forward in its name. In this occasional series, I’m going to take them one at a time.
1. Fixed Election Dates
I’d like to acknowledge Professor Henry Milner of Montreal for starting me on this. The Globe & Mail recently publish an op-ed of his arguing that fixed election dates are a “no-brainer.” No one, he implied, could possibly oppose fixed election dates.
I can’t help thinking anyone with a brain even minimally engaged should see that the principal consequence of fixed election dates is longer election campaigns, and even more control of the political process by those with the most money to spend. When the date of an election is known four years in advance, the fine-tuning of lavish political advertising and marketing campaigns will start three and a half years in advance. Even Paul Martin’s spring 2005 promise of an election within a year has put us into non-stop campaign mode since the summer. I prefer campaigns when necessary, not campaigns for ever. The ones we have are plenty long enough.
Fixed election dates do a little good, a little damage, and should be assessed as such. (What good? Well, they do hobble the small advantage an incumbent government can draw from its control of the electoral timetable.) They don't mean much, in the end. What is troubling about the idea, deep down, is the hostility to legislative democracy. Once again, an electoral reform proposal offers another plan to remove a power from our elected representatives. Sure, our legislatures have not been serving us well. But the solution to the democratic deficit lies in making them work better, not finding new ways to hobble them.
More to come....
