Who amongst the political cognoscenti does not deplore the following:
- Falling rates of voter participation
- The economics of fund raising
- The rising number of potential candidates declining to run The falling quality of elected members, and
- The lack of “democracy” in our leader-centred parliaments?
All of these can be consolidated under the rubric of Canadian politics having moved to a “post-party” position.
The breakdown of parties as the lead players in the system is the source of the “depression” being felt in the media and amongst party leadership (elected and back-room).
Why People Don’t Vote
The twentieth century was once described as a “short century“: 1914-1991 (originally 1989 for the fall of the Berlin Wall; updated for the fall of the Soviet Union).
This was the period of the common man, of the mass, of the mass state (state capitalist [communist], social democrat, corporatist, etc.).
Media outlets were few (relative to today), and required — as did almost everything else — large amounts of capital to be mobilized to allow them to even exist.
Whether one takes 1989 or 1991 as the date, one of the first events of the post-short-century period is the rise of the Internet, and, in particular, the World Wide Web.
Suddenly any person could become a publisher: pennies replaced mounds of dollars as the cost of expressing oneself.
Coupled with this is the ease with which the Web made everything fit nicely into one category: miscellaneous.
No longer were institutions needed to organize ideas: any slice of opinion could be created and attract its followers.
In the mass age, to vote was to vote for a party.
What had, heading into Confederation, been primarily a vote for a member (to act as a representative in a distant capital) had long since transitioned into, first, a vote for a party — a platform and ideology and a cabinet team — and, starting with Trudeau, a transition to a vote purely for a leader who would become Prime Minister.
As we entered the 1990s, party big-tents began to break down: how else can one describe the splintering off of compromise over federalism leading to the Bloc Québécois, or the splintering off of compromise over neo-liberal populism that was Reform?
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼But the fracturing of the Progressive Conservatives was just the beginning of a realignment playing itself out in a Canadian context, but not at all unique to Canada.
What Reform (in particular; the BQ’s raison d’être being different) shows is a fundamental unwillingness, even in the late 1980s, to doing the work necessary to compromise on policy that is the essence of a big-tent party.
Instead, Reform “took its ball and went home”, maximizing its vote by concentrating it.
To be fair, as Reform moved from populist non-ideological movement to full-blown “neo-conservative” party, and thence watered down its social conservative and fiscal conservative roots in the transitions through the Canadian Alliance to the Conservative Party of Canada, it, too, has had to adopt the policies and practices of a big-tent party.
Real conservatives, as opposed to neo-liberals, who now look at the outcome and talk of replacing Mr. Harper, deploring the deficit and the budget, etc., are considered to be the “splittists” for daring to appeal, for instance, to the Conservative Party’s actual statement of principles.
Many are walking away. But for every ten that do, only a handful will end up shifting to another party.
Most will simply become “unpartied” — and likely will not vote.
For parties are not required and have become an anachronism.
We don’t need mass media (the means by which mass parties “get their message out”). We can now deal exclusively in issues. That will inevitably produce a sum of positions that matches no party’s set of policy compromises.
No Fibre, No Support
This, of course, is something overlooked by those who believe that, first and foremost, we must be “on side” with the leader and the party.
If one does subscribe to twentieth century politics, as laid out in the opening to this post, then this position follows naturally: principle should not stand in the face of need.
That need might be for continued power, it might be for future power, it might even be for someone or something to believe in.
For someone to challenge a change of views — and I do not believe that anyone should be forced to maintain a position in the face of new information — on the ground of principle is to indicate where consistency is to be expected. What is it Edmund Burke said?
[I]t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
I take this to mean that no politician and no party should abandon principles for any reason of expediency. Following the herd into “what to do” falls into this camp.
In other words, the Harper who leads a Conservative Party that stands for these principles:
- A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities;
- The Conservative Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive to its members;
- A belief in the equality of all Canadians;
- A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are: (1)The freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy; (2) The freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and (3) The right to own property;
- A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others;
- A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy;
- A belief that good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and has representatives who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interest of all.
has no business deciding to:
- Overthrow fiscal accountability with a slush fund approach to spending.
- Ignore those members who want to maintain the principle of fiscal responsibility.
- Makes some Canadians (e.g. auto sector) “more equal” than others.
- Take over decisions from individual Canadians by burdening them with debt repayment for multiple generations.
- Overthrow fiscal prudence by massive deficit financing (and approving of the destruction of the Canadian currency by the Bank of Canada).
- Massively meddle in the economy, deciding which old economy forces will be winners (at the expense of their peers, other businesses in trouble, and the creation of a twenty-first century economy for Canada.
- Creates a situation where the ethical probity of his Government, Ministers and Members will now be able to be called into question.
while demanding the loyalty of Conservatives with more moral fibre than him.
I know in my own case that I have respect for those who truly believe in other principles and are consistent in their application, even when I think them wrong.
Even after six years of Conservative power, Canadians who adhere to the principle of fiscal conservatism are on the outside looking in.
For myself, I am not searching for another party, a new party or any party.
So Why Not a New Party?
The short answer to “why not a new party” is: I don’t want party discipline in the mix.
A Burkean representative is not a trained seal, applauding on command and voting against their principles and conscience because the leader’s whip says so.
Given our undersized Federal Parliament and Provincial Legislatures, however, it takes a member of rare fortitude to stand against his/her party: the backbenchers are too few to make a difference, given the number of shadow assignments, parliamentary secretaryships, ministerial appointments, committee chairs, etc. on offer.
Then, too, such a member is seldom kept in the caucus, nor renominated by their party.
These are institutional issues. A candidate who runs as an Independent, however, is likely to keep that independence in practice.
As Australia is showing — where the number of independents in their State Houses and in their Commonwealth setting continues to rise — principle can be returned once it must be demonstrated to win support.
The other major reason for avoiding parties (like the plague) from now on is that inevitably one is forced to choose between principles as the big-tent is formed.
Suppose, for instance, one believed that it is long overdue that we should raise more tax from unwanted production of externalities (this is broader than a carbon tax but along the same line) and instead raise less in other ways.
Suppose, as well, that fiscal responsibility, accountability and no deficit spending were another set of principles being held to.
I might get the second from the Conservatives (some far flung day in the future) or possibly a regenerated Liberal Party. But I won’t get the first. I might get the first from the Greens or possibly the New Democrats. But would I get the second?
Why have to make the decision? Why not work with two issue groups: one that presses for environmental change, and one that presses for responsible finances?
This is, of course, how many who are entering the voting stream see matters.
They are quite committed to their principles — and they see no reason to engage in traditional politics to get their way.
Indeed, wisely, they often decide to have nothing to do with “the system”, seeing newer parties (such as the Greens) as the moral equivalent to the older parties. Extra-parliamentary pressure is their avenue for policy change, as opposed to selecting “a winning leader” or a policy convention.
For those in parties, the drying up of donations, the evaporation of votes, the lack of ground workers for campaigns, the failure to acquire a candidate of choice — these are the causes for their depression. For those of us who found supporting their parties steadily less viable, however, our depression lifts when we finally say “enough is enough”.
Postscript: The Media
Previously I have lamented the media’s focus on horse races and process rather than issues.
The good news about giving up on parties and leaders is that the traditional media loses any further relevance as well.
Blogs, Facebook Groups, Tweets, and the like, on the other hand, bring together people around individual issues. The CBC and the private networks do not. Nor do the newspapers: the investment in a “Parliamentary Press Gallery” position is more than enough to fall into process thinking and party games.
In other words, the inadequacies and poor service of our media in Canada is something that will end soon: dead due to a lack of interest.
As I’ve often said, I embrace the independent member. One who plays to my issues will get my vote. If they are party-affiliated, I may take a chance.
What I’ve realised from this is that I’ve moved from the party politics of the nation-state to the politics of community. It’s a good place to be.