Tragedy in the Commons: Former Members of Parliament Speak out about Canada’s Failing Democracy

I was warned not to do it, but I did it anyway…I read “Tragedy in the Commons: Former Members of Parliament Speak out about Canada’s Failing Democracy” by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan. Wow, what a depressing book! But, at the same time, it is a vitally important book if we truly care about the future of democracy in our country.

 

Basically, the book consists of exit interviews with 88 former MPs from all parties, and at all levels. These MPs acted as our representatives and were seen to make important decisions on our behalf, allocating billions of dollars, representing the country internationally and also determining which problems the country will work to solve. So, what did the researchers find out when interviewing these illustrious former MPs?

 

1.      Anti-Politician Schtick: Virtually all of them had that same common story: they were “outsiders” that had never aspired to be politicians (in fact, they were reluctant to do it) and that they basically despise political ambition (they were often embarrassed to say that they were “politicians"…yikes, if they are embarrassed by it, how should we react?).  But, it seems that as Canadians we also don’t like to see anyone who has ambition for politics…we seem to like a little reluctance (genuine or otherwise) in the people that we chose as leaders…perhaps we are part of the problem? Many of those interviewed had had long political careers, but almost without exception, they distanced themselves from the poor state of our politics (thus providing a way to avoid taking responsibility…i.e., they never really wanted to do it). Hmmm.

2.       Disconnect: The majority of the MPs found Canadian politics broken. They saw a system that didn’t reflect them or what they viewed as important and that the link between government and citizens was broken and prime ministers, no matter what the stripe, acted frequently beyond accountability.

3.      Canada is Diverse: Unlike some countries, Canada doesn’t have a “typical” profession that leads to politics, i.e., we don’t have a “political class” (this is a good thing, I think!). In the US it’s lawyers; China, engineers; Indonesia and Africa, military; Brazil, doctors; and South Korea, civil servants.

4.      Seeking Change: Almost all of those interviewed had been leaders of some sort in their community before taking office (Claudette Bradshaw is quoted) and went into this business to create positive change.

5.      Canadians don’t trust politicians: In 1968 nearly 60% of Canadians trusted their government to do the right thing, whereas in 2012 only 28% did. In fact, the only “profession” that ranked lower was internet bloggers…in another survey the only one ranked below politicians was psychics. Yikes. These are the people who are voting on legislation that impacts so many important things in our lives!

6.      Politicians see themselves as outsiders: Almost without exception, every interviewee saw themselves as an outsider looking to fix a flawed political system. Each thought of himself or herself as different from a regular politician, basically pretending that they weren’t politicians like the others, but regular people. I think we all need to worry a bit about this. If politicians don’t stick up for their professions and find them so incredibly unsavoury, what on earth are voters supposed to think?

7.      The Nomination Process is a cruel game: Remember, this book interviewed people who had WON nominations and even they think it is opaque, manipulative evil and a backroom game.

8.      Competition for Cabinet: Once they got to Parliament, the competition was just starting! There is virtually no orientation, no one was interested in helping them (everyone is competing for a cabinet post) and suddenly your party only wants you for your vote (parties definitely didn’t seem to care whether they were able to represent constituents effectively or hold government to account).

9.      There is no job description. I know, it doesn’t seem possible, but there isn’t, nor is there a definition of an MP’s responsibilities (this is actually the same in municipal politics). According to the Library of Parliament, an MP in the Westminster system has three traditional roles: #1 to consider, refine and pass legislation (establish policy and pass laws); #2 to hold the government accountable for its administration of the laws and to authorize the expenditure of required funds; and #3 to determine the life of the government by providing or withholding support. That’s it. There were enormously divergent views among the 88 former MPs on what an MP’s role is. So, I guess the question to ask is, if MPs don’t know what their role is, how on earth are voters supposed to know what to expect? And, if they don’t have a clear sense of what’s expected of them on the job, who is really to blame when that job doesn’t get done?

10.  How to survive: become an expert on something, vote and keep quiet, or spend all your time addressing constituents’ concerns back in the riding (in some ways, acting as a customer service rep for the federal government) with the goal of getting elected again in four years. Not very inspiring.

11.  Question Period is an extremely expensive form of political marketing. Virtually everyone agreed that this is broken and is partisan politics at its very worst, the “theatre” of parliament…and yet, MPs rarely took responsibility for their own participation in the behaviour that they complained vehemently about…it was always someone else. However, change is necessary because the partisan spiral into which Parliament is descending leads to an increasingly polarized political discourse – which in turn leads to a situation where critical disagreement is marginalized by yelling, and differences of opinion are usurped by drive-by slurs or personal attacks. Sure doesn’t inspire me! Sadly, all of this political partisan bickering doesn’t allow for any room to discuss the important issues.  

12.  The real work gets done in committees. Unfortunately though, not much happens with committee work once it is finished, much of the time.

13.  Autonomy at home – loyalty on Parliament Hill. Apparently party discipline is so tight these days that members must restrict their public comments to speaking points the party has provided…and well, good luck to someone who doesn’t want to vote along party lines! (There were some pretty nasty stories in this section, particularly when less competent people were rewarded because of political debts.)

14.  Political parties are about the least transparent organizations around. There is much less reporting required from them than from Canadian charities and far less than what is required of publicly traded Canadian corporations. This, in spite of the fact that parties receive proportionally more public subsidies than either charities or corporations. Political parties ask Canadians to join and contribute, but with very little opportunity for meaningful contribution beyond that. And, MPs are completely disenchanted with their parties...kind of hard to expect citizens to engage with these parties. Canadians on the whole believe we need parties, we just don’t like or trust them.

15.  Too much power is in the PMO’s office. When investigating 22 of the world’s parliamentary democracies in the context of “prime ministerial influence on policy”, Canadian Prime Ministers were ranked as the most powerful. But it wasn’t always like this. Each successive majority PM since Trudeau has consolidated more power in the PMOs office. This was a huge problem for all the MPs. It means that they are just there for their votes, and it extinguishes meaningful roles for MPs. It disengages voters from their MPs, the people best situated to represent their view to government in a meaningful way. And it discourages regular citizens from engaging in the political process: if they don’t see an opportunity to have their voice heard by someone who understands and cares about the issues and attitudes, where they live, why bother? Silencing debate and diversity of opinion affects us all. It weakens our democratic institutions by making them less responsive to us. It makes it more difficult to attract good people to public service and it erodes Canadians’ faith in their government. See, I told you, pretty depressing.

 

So, how can we improve this situation? Because, as we all know, democracy relies on citizen engagement to thrive and citizens must believe that politics is worth their time if they are going to actively participate. Things need to change. But how? Here are some ideas from the researchers:

 

1.      Journalists should not pounce on every caucus member who expresses an opinion that diverges from their party line and not treat healthy exchanges of opinion in public as treason or a pending leadership revolt.

2.      Citizens must demand and reward a more nuanced political culture.

3.      Parties must become more transparent. (Did you know that a review of over1,300 riding association websites, fewer than 1% gave information about how to become a candidate? Just over 6% included the names of the local party executive and less than 5% had information on meeting schedules?)

4.      MPs need proper orientation when they get to parliament.

5.      MPs need job descriptions and responsibilities clearly outlined and understood by us.

6.      MPs need to act as reliable, vibrant, two-way links between citizens and their government. (Technology can help a lot here!)

7.      MPs need to get over their helplessness and do something about this situation. When Canadians believe that MPs do a better job at representing the views of their party than representing them, we have a problem.

8.      MPs need to confront and change that myth that they are outsiders, riding into town to save politics from itself (since clearly, they aren’t doing that). They need to take responsibility for the situation by refusing party-drafted talking points and communicate better with their constituents, particularly after something like a throne speech or a budget – what does it mean locally?

9.      Citizens need to get involved and demand a constructive and engaging system.

10.  In the next election all candidates should identify 2-3 pro-democracy commitments they’ll make if elected…and we need to hold them to it.

 

Thanks for reading all of this! As you know, I’m pretty passionate about changing our system and this book allowed me to better understand the Federal system…and perhaps take some of what I’ve learned and apply it at the municipal level. I definitely have some ideas for our procedural by-law now. I would love to hear your thoughts. And finally, don't worry, things are kind of slow at the moment allowing me the time to read...I'm sure once September comes there won't be any more long blogs!