The Globe & Mail editorializes today on Bill Casey, MP, ejected from the Conservative Party caucus for being right too soon. (He voted against his government's budget to support Nova Scotia's position on the Atlantic Accord, a position now accepted by the federal government.) Sez the Globe, "It was legitimate for Mr Casey to vote his conscience; it was legitimate for Mr Harper to kick him out of caucus for voting no-confidence in the budget."
There's barely a political journalist or political scientist or politician in the country who would disagree with this statement. But it is dangerous nonsense. Arbitrary governments are bad, but unaccountable arbitrary governments are worse. In a parliamentary system, one of the first lines of accountability for a government must be to its own caucus. The breakdown of that accountability lies at the root of the democratic deficit in this country
Ultimately, a parliamentary caucus consists of elected members who agree to band together under a label, and it is the caucus that has authority to determine its membership. In practically every parliamentary system but Canada's, leaders are caucus members like all the rest, and act as leaders only on caucus's suffrance; most see their leadership careers end when the caucus decides they have outworn their welcome.
In Canada, a party leader draws his title from an extra-parliamentary process. Generally, Canadian party leaders are elected by bunches of people gathered in hockey arenas who bought their votes or had them bought for them.
But in the end he or she is a caucus member like the others, and must be accountable to caucus -- or to no one. A caucus that has surrendered its control over its membership to a leader is a mob of MPs who have surrendered the fundamental responsibility of MPs. They cannot act, because they cannot hold the leader accountable.
True, it doesn't work that way in Canada. But no one should suggest Mr Harper's way is the right way just because things work like that in all Canadian political parties today.
Nothing could be more valuable today than a reminder from the Conservative caucus to Mr Harper (and to the Globe's editorial board) that it is up to the caucus to decide whether Mr Casey can be a member.
