Our government is not serving us. It's time to get serious about democratic reform
Putting people over party is just one critical way to bring our democratic institutions up to date
I recently had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of voters as I sought the Liberal nomination in St. John's Centre.
I'd first gone door to door during an election 20 years ago. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are always polite but this time around I noticed something different.
The voter dissatisfaction and apathy was obvious.
I've been around politics and government my entire adult life. At present, there is anger in the voting public that I've never seen before.
I could not help but come to the conclusion that it is time for our province and country to get serious about democratic reform.
The government went on a spending spree before the election, after years of claiming there is no money and instituting unpopular taxes.
If there was one thing I heard at the doors, it was that people wanted me to vote for their interests rather than with a political party.
People wanted me to do what was better for Newfoundland and Labrador rather than try to hold the government in power. Most had no idea how revolutionary this idea is — the notion that we should move away from party discipline and the executive dominance of parliamentary democracy.
The most insightful statement about Jody Wilson-Raybould's exit from the Liberal cabinet was, "the scandal is what's legal."
American political commentator, Michael Kinsley, first uttered those words. It refers to the fact that although distasteful things are happening, they are allowed to, based on the way the rules are written at present. That's a good description of where we are.
Western democracy principles
I watched in shock as Wilson-Raybould went against the principles that parliamentary democracy is built upon and the Canadian public cheered as she did. There was little discussion of party discipline, the importance of attorney client privilege, or the supremacy of the Prime Minister's Office.
These are principles that Western democracy has relied on for stability for a thousand years and no one noticed that an uprising was happening against them. I realized that what was actually happening was that parliamentary democracy had fallen out of favour and we are living in a truly revolutionary moment.
Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we have experienced our own share of government overreach and the arrogance seems to have grown.
We have watched as friends of the government receive contracts without appropriate processes being followed.
Most recently, an early election was called without approving a budget — not for the first time in our history admittedly.
The government went on a spending spree before the election, after years of claiming there is no money and instituting unpopular taxes.
There is often a non-existent dividing line between party and government, as premier's offices use their considerable resources for party work and to influence democratic processes.
Should we be so surprised?
UNESCO dates the first parliament to 1188 in Spain. Certainly, the whole concept of parliament is based on ancient practices in Greece and Rome. Are we really surprised that an institution that dates to the Middle Ages is failing us?
It is a concept that was developed by white European men. Are we surprised that it was an Indigenous woman that challenged the principles of parliament in Canada when Indigenous Canadians had nothing to do with developing Canadian parliamentary institutions?
These institutions were not built for the working class, women or minorities.
The reality of parliamentary governance is that it involves incredible concentrations of power. The whole idea behind the separation of powers is that one branch of government makes the laws (legislative), another enacts them (executive), and another enforces them (judicial).
This is designed to prevent abuses of power.
However, the reality of British-style parliamentary government is that the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches is almost non-existent. Prime ministers, premiers, and their offices reign supreme.
Bad decision making around Muskrat Falls was enabled by the concentration of power in the executive branch of government and the requirement that MHAs to fall in line behind the premier and cabinet in the House of Assembly.
It's time to accept that parliamentary executive dominance is not serving us.
The American republican style of governance has clear separation of power between branches. They have an elected president who appoints the cabinet, separate from the legislative branch. This was initially designed in the 18th century as a reaction against the strong concentration of powers in the British system.
American founding fathers wanted to guard against their president becoming an elected king and the system has arguably worked well at keeping Donald Trump in check. Indeed, Trump has frequently been surprised at his lack of power.
However, prime ministers and premiers have much more power at their disposal in parliamentary systems. The American system has legislative dominance while the Canadian system has executive dominance.
The defining feature of parliamentary government is that the executive depends on the legislative branch for its power. You have to command power in the legislative branch in order to be able to rule in the executive branch. In reality, if you want to become part of the executive branch (enter cabinet) you have to follower orders.
As such, party discipline rules.
A few years ago we thought Canada was so much better off than the United States because our Liberal Prime Minister could do liberal things. Today, the American system has new rising stars in the legislative branch, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are not checked by party discipline and who are less restrained in speaking her mind.
America's institutions are newer, brought about by the 18th century enlightenment focus on human rights. "We the people …" is the founding principle.
It's time to accept that parliamentary executive dominance is not serving us. In the tradition of the British class system and British imperialism, it serves the upper class best. There's too much potential for abuse of power and corruption when political parties still depend on campaign contributions.
Parties are very powerful and foster control by a small number of families and individuals who are important donors. However, voters are more educated than ever before and have more access to information through the Internet and social media.
All of this means we need to get serious about democratic reform — real democratic reform and not a committee that is quickly put together in the months before an early election. We need our best minds at the table and leaders who are willing to embrace bold solutions.
If there has ever been a time in our history for "all hands on deck" this is it. If the scandal is what's legal, then we need to look at making more things illegal and giving voters more power. We also need to do it quickly because here in Newfoundland and Labrador our financial situation is not getting any better.
Our economy continues to be run on resource revenue that largely benefits the elites who control the purse strings of government. Meaningful diversification of economy into the global marketplace has not occurred here.
In 1777 Samuel Johnson was quoted as saying, "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
It is clearly time for us to accept that the fortnight is here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to concentrate our minds on democratic reform.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
