A recent article in The Economist (See: The perils of extreme democracy: http://www.economist.com/node/18586520) examines the mess in California that results when the lunatics take over the asylum. Californians have extraordinary constitutional rights to recall elected politicians and force legislation that is either poorly thought out or straight out loony. The result is political gridlock and state bankruptcy. As the article points out, California has the poorest state credit rating in the nation. The article also points out that populism, or direct rule by the electorate, is showing something of a rebirth in Europe. England is having a referendum on its voting system. Other European countries would like to have referenda on immigration and taxation. So far, cooler heads have prevailed.
Democracy is a fragile balance between the will of the electorate and the performance of the elected representative. When these two interests diverge, the elected representative is usually not re-elected. This works well when the time between elections is not unduly long. Changed circumstances or an unduly long time between elections may result in a complete divergence of ideologies between the electorate and the representative. That is why so many elective terms are mandated, as are term limits.
Ontario recently had a referendum on the issue of proportional representation. This system usually features a list of candidates from various political parties. They are elected on the basis of the percentage of the vote that is obtained by their respective political parties. The good feature of this system is that it allows smaller minority groups to have a say in government. However, this system tends to divide the legislature into smaller factions where there may be no one group that has enough votes to govern. Ontario tried to propose this system and the electorate roundly turned down the proposition. Israel is a good example of the negative aspects of proportional representation. In order to stay in power the Likud party has to make a deal with the extreme religious right. The West Bank settlements are the result.
The parliamentary system (Canada, UK) works well when one party returns enough members so that it has a majority of the votes in the legislature. However, this system is sometimes called the “tyranny of the majority”. Minority parties seldom have any input into legislation. When one party does not return enough members to have a majority the party with the largest number of seats has to seek the support of the minority parties to put forth and pass legislation. Sometimes parties get together in a coalition (formal or informal) to put together enough votes to govern.
The republican system (US, France, Germany) features various branches of governments; usually a lower house of representatives, another more elitist legislature of fewer members such as a senate and a president. Any one of the three can propose legislation. This system results in legislation by negotiation between the various branches of government. The result can be highly effective legislation that reflects the various ideologies of the elected representatives. The result can also be gridlock.
In a previous post I posited that minority governments could work well. For minority governments to work well there must be some single mindedness between the various parties that results in legislation that is within the ethos of all parties. Usually this happened when the Liberals and the NDP got together on legislation that was politically left centered (pension reform under Pearson). When there is deep divide between one or more of the parties minority governments will not, nay cannot, work. The political chasm between the right and the center left can’t be easily resolved. The party in power will be kept in power until the others see an opportunity for an election and for no other purpose. Note the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals in the UK. When everyone got right down to it there were more similarities than differences in their respective political ideologies. No such luck in Canada. Canadians will continue to return minority governments until there is coalescence between the center left and the left. Then Canadians will have a true choice.
Since writing this post a poll has been taken that shows the Canadian conservatives to be well ahead of the Liberals and the NDP parties. The Liberals have moved slightly behind the NDP in the popular vote. An analysis of the various riding has indicated that the Conservatives will form the next government with a Liberal opposition and the NDP not far behind. The PQ will be marginalized with very few seats. This would seem to indicate that the electorate has moved well to the right. The NDP has taken up some of the void created by the PQ when its aims and aspirations failed to resonate with the younger electorate. Usually, that slack fell to the benefit of the Liberal party but it seems that Jack Layton has considerable support in the province. This shift will mean that the Liberals can no longer rely on the support of Quebec (as it once did) to counteract the sold support that the Conservatives have in the Canadian west. So it seems that Canadians have opted to break the gridlock in Canadian politics. Unless the polls are wrong.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment