Last week, Canadians witnessed very nasty jousting between Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan and NDP House leader Nathan Cullen — a despicable display of old-fashioned political machismo.
The verbal brawl resulted from Speaker Andrew Sheer’s ruling against Cullen’s point of order questioning the legitimacy of the vote on the government’s omnibus budget bill. Van Loan crossed the floor to berate Cullen for having had the audacity to question the legitimacy of the vote.
Why is this misbehaviour significant? What does it reveal about the state of Parliament and the health of Canadian democracy?
Such nasty clashes are merely the most recent symptoms of the complete failure of decorum in Canada’s Parliament, in both the House and the Senate, since the Harper government took over in 2006. The decline in decorum certainly predates the Harper administration but his government has pushed it over the cliff. It has played fast and loose with Canada’s parliamentary conventions and procedures because it believes that most Canadians do not understand their importance — or simply don’t care. Harper can remake the rules to serve his purpose: the retention of power at all and any costs to democracy.
One can understand why Harper and his ministers behaved so aggressively during their period of minority rule, 2006 to 2011. The Harper government was immature, inexperienced and deeply paranoid about any criticism coming from the opposition or the media because his government had limited power to get its agenda passed.
Stephen Harper has had a majority since May 2011, but his government’s behaviour toward the opposition parties and the media has not ameliorated. Instead, his ministers and MPs have become even more aggressive towards, and dismissive of, all opposition MPs. His government continues to be suspicious of the ‘mainstream’ media, believing it to be at the root of a ‘liberal’ conspiracy against all Conservatives.
The Harper government’s modus operandi, in and out of Parliament, is troublesome for several reasons. For a start, its approach threatens the very existence of Canada’s constitutional democracy — under which sovereignty ultimately lies in the hands of citizens.
Canada’s system of parliamentary democracy is founded on the principle of responsible government. There must be at least two viable parties elected to the House of Commons. The governor general, under most circumstances, grants the party that wins and holds a plurality of MPs the right to form an executive (cabinet) and govern — as long as it retains the confidence of the House.
Under this time-honoured system, cabinet is held to account by the official Opposition and the MPs from third or fourth parties. All of these MPs are elected to represent the views of their voters from constituencies all across the country and to hold the government to account. Alas, cabinet cannot be brought to account by its own party’s MPs, who are duty-bound by a questionable political convention to remain loyal to their executive.
For a government to disparage and, more dangerously, delegitimize the vital constitutional role of the Opposition is tantamount to highjacking the legislative branch for its own narrow, self-serving purposes. In doing so, the government undermines the very essence of parliamentary democracy. It also mocks the supremacy of Canada’s Constitution, the foundational law of our democracy.
More and more Canadians are becoming aware of the increasingly dictatorial behaviour of the Harper government, spawning organizations dedicated to diagnosing the faults in our political process and suggesting cures.
Samara Canada, which has an excellent website, is one such group. Samara’s most recent issue of its Democracy Reports, Who’s the Boss? Canadians’ Views on Their Democracy, reveals some very troubling facts: 45 per cent of Canadians are dissatisfied with their democratic institutions and how they function (up from 25 per cent in 2004) Two-thirds of Canadians are dissatisfied with their MPs.
Why? “Canadians”, the Samara Report concludes, “feel MPs do a better job representing the views of the party than they do representing their constituents.”
When Canadians were asked to evaluate the five main roles of their MPs, the report came up with some startling results: only 45 per cent think their MPs are holding the government to account; 46 per cent believe their MPs are representing constituents’ views; 53 per cent maintain their MPs debate or vote on important issues; nearly two-thirds believe their MPs are focused on representing the views of their party; and only 44 per cent think their MPs are managing individual constituents’ concerns.
Even more revealing is the report’s distillation of exit interviews conducted with 65 former MPs. Most of them complained of the excessively partisan nature of the role imposed on them by their parties, arguing it prevented them from properly representing the views of their constituents.
MPs, especially those in opposition, are deeply frustrated with their inability to play more meaningful roles in the House of Commons, particularly in its government-dominated committees. This, more than anything else, explains the breakdown in decorum.
Most Canadians understand the importance of the MP’s role in our democracy. They’re very frustrated with the viciously partisan nature of the political parties, which seek to win at any cost by driving wedges between voters and regions of Canada. Canadians are most angry with the Conservatives, for their permanent partisan political campaigning inside and outside the House.
Right now, it is virtually impossible for MPs of either side of the House to cooperate in serving the needs of all Canadians. Parliament’s role had been reduced to a political circus for the spinmasters. Time to clean house.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Michael Behiels
The verbal brawl resulted from Speaker Andrew Sheer’s ruling against Cullen’s point of order questioning the legitimacy of the vote on the government’s omnibus budget bill. Van Loan crossed the floor to berate Cullen for having had the audacity to question the legitimacy of the vote.
Why is this misbehaviour significant? What does it reveal about the state of Parliament and the health of Canadian democracy?
Such nasty clashes are merely the most recent symptoms of the complete failure of decorum in Canada’s Parliament, in both the House and the Senate, since the Harper government took over in 2006. The decline in decorum certainly predates the Harper administration but his government has pushed it over the cliff. It has played fast and loose with Canada’s parliamentary conventions and procedures because it believes that most Canadians do not understand their importance — or simply don’t care. Harper can remake the rules to serve his purpose: the retention of power at all and any costs to democracy.
One can understand why Harper and his ministers behaved so aggressively during their period of minority rule, 2006 to 2011. The Harper government was immature, inexperienced and deeply paranoid about any criticism coming from the opposition or the media because his government had limited power to get its agenda passed.
Stephen Harper has had a majority since May 2011, but his government’s behaviour toward the opposition parties and the media has not ameliorated. Instead, his ministers and MPs have become even more aggressive towards, and dismissive of, all opposition MPs. His government continues to be suspicious of the ‘mainstream’ media, believing it to be at the root of a ‘liberal’ conspiracy against all Conservatives.
The Harper government’s modus operandi, in and out of Parliament, is troublesome for several reasons. For a start, its approach threatens the very existence of Canada’s constitutional democracy — under which sovereignty ultimately lies in the hands of citizens.
Canada’s system of parliamentary democracy is founded on the principle of responsible government. There must be at least two viable parties elected to the House of Commons. The governor general, under most circumstances, grants the party that wins and holds a plurality of MPs the right to form an executive (cabinet) and govern — as long as it retains the confidence of the House.
Under this time-honoured system, cabinet is held to account by the official Opposition and the MPs from third or fourth parties. All of these MPs are elected to represent the views of their voters from constituencies all across the country and to hold the government to account. Alas, cabinet cannot be brought to account by its own party’s MPs, who are duty-bound by a questionable political convention to remain loyal to their executive.
For a government to disparage and, more dangerously, delegitimize the vital constitutional role of the Opposition is tantamount to highjacking the legislative branch for its own narrow, self-serving purposes. In doing so, the government undermines the very essence of parliamentary democracy. It also mocks the supremacy of Canada’s Constitution, the foundational law of our democracy.
More and more Canadians are becoming aware of the increasingly dictatorial behaviour of the Harper government, spawning organizations dedicated to diagnosing the faults in our political process and suggesting cures.
Samara Canada, which has an excellent website, is one such group. Samara’s most recent issue of its Democracy Reports, Who’s the Boss? Canadians’ Views on Their Democracy, reveals some very troubling facts: 45 per cent of Canadians are dissatisfied with their democratic institutions and how they function (up from 25 per cent in 2004) Two-thirds of Canadians are dissatisfied with their MPs.
Why? “Canadians”, the Samara Report concludes, “feel MPs do a better job representing the views of the party than they do representing their constituents.”
When Canadians were asked to evaluate the five main roles of their MPs, the report came up with some startling results: only 45 per cent think their MPs are holding the government to account; 46 per cent believe their MPs are representing constituents’ views; 53 per cent maintain their MPs debate or vote on important issues; nearly two-thirds believe their MPs are focused on representing the views of their party; and only 44 per cent think their MPs are managing individual constituents’ concerns.
Even more revealing is the report’s distillation of exit interviews conducted with 65 former MPs. Most of them complained of the excessively partisan nature of the role imposed on them by their parties, arguing it prevented them from properly representing the views of their constituents.
MPs, especially those in opposition, are deeply frustrated with their inability to play more meaningful roles in the House of Commons, particularly in its government-dominated committees. This, more than anything else, explains the breakdown in decorum.
Most Canadians understand the importance of the MP’s role in our democracy. They’re very frustrated with the viciously partisan nature of the political parties, which seek to win at any cost by driving wedges between voters and regions of Canada. Canadians are most angry with the Conservatives, for their permanent partisan political campaigning inside and outside the House.
Right now, it is virtually impossible for MPs of either side of the House to cooperate in serving the needs of all Canadians. Parliament’s role had been reduced to a political circus for the spinmasters. Time to clean house.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Michael Behiels
No comments:
Post a Comment