The argument is for relaxing party discipline is that MPs should not be “trained sheep” but an MP is elected to serve as a member of a particular party. Within the party, the MP is called upon to deliberate and participate in formulating policies, and then to accept a support the majority decision.
The Prime Minister and government must have the means of achieving their objectives and as MPs are a member of a particular party that provides broad perspectives on NATIONAL issues, individual constituencies and every single issue at hand shouldn't always be on the top of the agenda.
The party "whip" has many misconceptions such as being the menancing disciplinarian imposing the will of the party on recalcitrant MPs. However, this is not the case, although there are some instances where MPs have been coerced or even threatened with sanctions if they do not conform. But party discipline is largely self-imposed. Besides, MPs at least for the sake of their own self-preservation, are willing to tolerate party discipline…(ex: no MP since 1940 has ever broken party ranks during a minority government nor has any MP ever left the government side with a majority fewer than nine seats.
As you can see, we need a certain degree of party discipline to get anything done and to have a solid government. Now a better question would be to ask should Canada move close to an American Model where congress is able to vote according to their set of principle and ethics?
Thoughts? Opinions?
-SW
2 comments:
Canada is said to have, quite possibly, the most strict party discipline in the world. Party discipline exists within the responsible government model so that parties can carry out their agendas on nationally based issues. Party discipline also prevents numerous votes of non-confidence, which would lead to dissolution of Parliament and numerous, costly elections. Party discipline, therefore, makes life easy for government and opposition parties. It is the major foundation of responsible government so that government can actually get things done (unlike in the United States where often there are standstills between Congress and the President). However, there are a number of problems that arise with extremely strict party discipline.
Within Canada, there are regional disparities that may be contributed to by strict party discipline. Electorates cannot properly represent their constituencies or ridings. Allowing for lesser party discipline may prevent some alienation (e.g. The West and Quebec). The corruption or biased nature of legislation favouring Inner Canada (ONTARIO-QUEBEC) would shift to also representing Outer Canada.
It is often said that Members of Parliament (MPS) have no say - a statement that has much validity to it. Some MPS do not even carefully read bills and just vote along party lines at times. This stems from their opportunity to be promoted if they show a commitment to their party. Furthermore, if MPS do not vote within party lines, they may be subject to no promotion or even being kicked out of the party. This was the case for Bill Casey when he voted against changes to equalization payments in the Conservative party. Add to this, the pressure that media puts on parties: media will often blame a leader for not having control of his or her party if MPS don't vote on party lines. This contributes to the fear of the MP who objects to what may be a disagreeable bill-"soon-to-become"-law.
A plausible option may be a re-definition of votes on confidence, as stated in the 1985 McGrath Report to only issues central to the administration. This would allow MPS to vote along party lines on key party promises and issues, but vote with relaxed party discipline on other issues. For example, between 1867 and 1872, John A Macdonald was a successful Prime Minister despite constantly having bills rejected. On many key issues, he was still able to co-operate with the opposition.
Another option that Canada could look at is adopting international ideas. West Germany's Chancellor, for example, can't be defeated in the German Reichstag (House) unless the opposing parties immediately agree to a leader to represent them (that is after a bill is rejected). This stops colossal wastes of money on new elections where the outcomes are not much different from the prior election(s). The USA also has much better regional representation than Canada. We may be able to adopt features of the US system. Of course, this is countered by the argument that the USA is able to do this because of a fixed mandate and a separation of powers.
Some people use the argument that because the USA uses the separation of powers that we are unable to adopt any relaxation of party discipline. This is in many ways, a slippery slope, argument that because we allow a little bit of relaxation, that people think we are going to change the whole system of responsible government.
Sorry... it's rushed and I'm tired. I hope you get some of the major premises of the argument though. I don't particularly agree with the argument I made, but I do want to present the other side is all. In the end that's how we arrive at conclusions, right? - looking objectively at an issue from both sides.
Take Care.
Sources include "Contemporary Political Issues" (5th Edition) and "The Canadian Regime" (3rd Edition).
To support your argument:
- Party discipline is the key to holding our Canadian responsible government system together. The model and political leaders have been successful in binding our country together since 1867. Most countries have gone through some form of political upheaval within the last 150 years. Why change what's working for us?
- If party discipline were relaxed, it may cause some fragmentation of Canadian politics. Parties are established for broadly based national policies that represent all of Canada, not just segments of the country. A party is elected to fulfil national promise to the people; people vote for the party, not the person in their riding in this highly disciplined form of government. Furthermore, if party discipline was relaxed, there could be numerous non-confidence votes for dissolution and expensive elections would follow (Prime Ministers could not control their parties).
- Some people suggest that we should be more like the USA, but it is not that simple. We have a responsible government, not a separation of powers. The USA also has a fixed mandate so that their President and Congress stay in power for 4 years, and 6 years respectively. Because of the fixed mandate, they don't need to have the confidence of one another to stay in power.
- MPs largely self-impose strict party discipline. In 1923, a relaxation motion on party discipline failed miserably. MPs tolerate this system to protect our system of government, which people here believe is in many ways, better than the American Separation of Powers (due to standstills between Congress and the President).
- Voters don't respond very well to people who switch parties because they are generally running to represent their own constituencies. Between 1940 and 1988, 19 of 31 MPs failed to win their ridings after switching parties because they wanted to represent their respective ridings better.
Post a Comment