The democratic deficiencies of this peculiar method of choosing a leader have long been apparent. Far from “the members” selecting the leader, the choice is as often as not decided by thousands of instant members, with no connection to the party prior to voting day and scarcely more afterward. Once chosen by this cloud of mist, the leader is essentially accountable to no one, while members of caucus are obliged to submit to the near-absolute rule of someone they had not the least hand in choosing.
Coyne’s not tough enough here. The Canadian political
parties have all made party leadership a matter of nothing but capital
investment – whichever campaign invests in buying the most votes (“memberships”)
gets to own the party until the next leadership-selection orgy. China and India
are just following the path blazed by property developers and ethnic cliques and, who knows, the Hell’s Angels, to say nothing of leadership-campaign bagmen.
PS. MPs are duly elected representatives of the Canadian people, and cannot be "obliged" to submit whatever rules self-important party officials dream up. Canadian MPs just choose to submit, because everyone tells them it's their duty to.
