Congratulations Liberals, you have once again made things awful for the proper functioning on Canadian democracy, as you so often do. In fact, most of our democratic ills in this country can be traced directly back to Liberal “innovations,” like delegated leadership conventions, which removed caucus accountability of the party leader, to the “supporter class” of leadership selection – removing any and all accountability the leader had – and now you’ve decided to eliminate party memberships to further erode what accountability was left in the party system so that all of the remaining power can be centralised in the leader’s office and Big Data can be used to justify any and all policy decisions rather than allowing them to come from the grassroots. Well done! Oh, but no need to worry – Justin Trudeau totally promised that this wasn’t about centralizing power and taking it away from the grassroots (just the regional power brokers, natch), so no need to worry! Absent from that assurance was anything about accountability, which isn’t surprising given the way the history of these attempts to “democratize” things happen in this country. I’m not saying that the party didn’t need to update its various constitutions into a single body. That’s fine. But memberships are actually an important thing for the role of a political party in our democratic system. And while I get that the “supporter” category during the leadership was instrumental in populating the database that they’re so very proud of for their new digital future, it doesn’t erase the role that grassroots members play. While the Liberals are trying to “deconstruct” what a political party is and turn it into a “movement,” it can’t escape that political parties are not just “private clubs,” as the rhetoric around the new constitution has been trying to paint them as (and indeed, rhetoric used going back to the introduction of the “supporter” category during the leadership). And beyond just offering organizational structure within Parliament (which is in itself a Very Big Deal), parties have an interlocutory role to play between the parliamentary caucus and the public at large. It’s why people are supposed to be joining parties – to provide bottom-up ideas and policies, to nominate candidates, and in return, the riding associations act as interfaces to bring local concerns to caucus if there is no local representative. But we’re not taught about the importance of joining riding associations in school, and when the grassroots has weak structures and little power, then it only empowers the apparatchiks in Ottawa at the centre of the party. I fail to see how Trudeau’s new “movement” is going to empower the grassroots when riding associations will be hollowed out in favour of “streamlining” policy proposals via Big Data. The social and community aspects of riding associations are gone because there is no longer anything there for them to do, other than organise nominations every few years. And not only does it weaken the grassroots, it further diminishes the power of MPs (as Peter Lowen writes here) because that power gets centralized in the leader’s office – just as the power of MPs started being eroded when we took away their ability to select and remove leaders. But because we’re not being taught civic literacy, we’re not learning these lessons, and power continues to be centralized. Trudeau has consolidated a great deal of power now, owing to his popularity, and he is accountable to nobody, and the party structures that would place any kind of check on that power are now gone. I don’t see this as a great day for the Liberal party, but one that harkens worse things to come for our country’s political system as a whole.
https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/736672242864656385
Good reads:
- From the Conservative convention, the party finally voted to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage (and more on the people behind that drive here),while some were upset around the rules for protecting incumbents before the next election.
- Liberal and Independent senators are threatening to hold up Bill C-14, which is going how I expected.
- PCO has scrapped the “Message Event Proposal” centralized communications structure and is not replacing it with anything, unmuzzling the whole of government.
- Conservative whip Gordon Brown is telling everyone to move on after The Elbowing.
- Maryam Monsef said the government wouldn’t go ahead with electoral reform if they can’t get broad support. So does that mean we can call this off?
- The CRA is in trouble for not shredding literal tonnes of hard copy records that they are required to.
- The government has lost track of the number of temporary foreign workers who have gone underground and not left the country when their visas expire.
- Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is having a positive effect on the Canadian fashion industry (but please, for the love of all the gods on Olympus, stop calling her “First Lady.”)
- Two former Harper advisors say that Kevin O’Leary is bad for the Conservative Party because it’s too much about money for him.
- Colin Horgan makes the case to ban politicians from Twitter. (I somehow doubt this is going to gain much traction).
- Susan Delacourt notes the way in which Trudeau was touting the party’s new constitution as a way of burying the party’s factious past.
Odds and ends:
Tristin Hopper catalogues the various “tribes” of Conservative to be found at their convention.
You can listen to Justice Rosalie Abella’s address to Yale Law School when she was awarded an honorary degree.
During his convention speech, Trudeau took a moment to thank Stephen Harper for his public service. Bob Rae was a little less gracious.
https://twitter.com/chintapuxley/status/736663117946556417
BREAKING: Conservatives vote 1,036-462 to delete traditional definition of marriage from policy – accepting same-sex marriage #cpc16
— Jason Fekete (@jasonfekete) May 28, 2016
I think this article confuses a number of separate institutions. Party organisation should not be confused with democracy or the constitution. Parties own allegiance only to themselves. Whatever way they want to choose a leader is up to them – whether by polling the members, by a vote of caucus, or by reading tea leaves. If they think that’s going to work for them – so be it. As recently as the 1960s, the leader of the UK Conservatives (and hence the Prime Minister) was chosen entirely at the prerogative of the Queen, and Sir Alex Douglas-Home was chosen on a nod and a wink by the queen at the personal request of the the previous PM Harold Macmillan.
How much power a party invests in its leader is also up to them. It’s not part of the constitution – indeed I wish people could do a better job of understanding that parties, from the point of view of the constitution, don’t even exist. If they all decided to dissolve tomorrow, parliament and government would continue unhindered. The constitution dictates election of MPs by popular vote and the formation of government by whichever leader can control a majority of MPs. Nothing about parties there.
If a party wants to ignore grassroots opinion, that’s a matter for them. If that leads to them being out of touch, or the party leader behaving in a centralising or generally bloody-minded way, that’s something that people can address at an election. Indeed, I think that’s pretty much what happened last year.
RJT,
“How much power a party invests in its leader is also up to them. It’s not part of the constitution – indeed I wish people could do a better job of understanding that parties, from the point of view of the constitution, don’t even exist.”
I think that you are confusing two (or more) separate documents that are known as Constitutions. You are correct that the CONSTITUTION OF CANADA, namely, the CONSTITUTION ACT 1867 does NOT refer to political parties, and the other Constitutional Laws that make up the Constitution of Canada most likely does not mention them, except maybe the Parliament of Canada Act — is that considered to be a Constitutional Law, Dale — and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which define the official party status as twelve Members of the House of Commons – Members of Parliament or more.
What the Liberal Party of Canada adopted this weekend is a NEW PARTY CONSTITUTION of the LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA. All political parties and other organizations have constitutions, by-laws, etcerta. Those are known as the GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS which formally outlines the party structures and distributes power therein.
I would agree that the media should do a better job is trying to differentiate between the PARTY CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.
Ron McCallum
Hey Ron – I’m not a moron. The context of the piece was entirely about the party constitution. Nowhere did I even imply that this was about the constitution of Canada. Please don’t assume that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Dale,
I did not say that you were a moron, and my reply comment was directed to RJT, who I thought he had misunderstood the difference between party constitutions and the Constitution of Canada in his first two senences, “I think this article confuses a number of separate institutions. Party organisation should not be confused with democracy or the constitution” without any differentiation between a party constitution and the Constitution of Canada
In fact, the first time the word “constitution” was used in your blog column, was in the tweet from Aaron Wherry.
As an University graduate with a three year degree in History and Political Science, I am able to comprehend what you are saying and fully understand your concerns.
What is so confusing about the Constitution of Canada is that it is comprised of infinite number of Constitutional Laws, namely the two cornerstones of the Constitution Acts 1867 & 1982, the Statute of Westminster, Act of Settlement, and so forth; and unwritten Conventions and Practices. In my previous reply comment, I asked you whether or not the Parliament of Canada Act is considered to be part of the Constitution of Canada, and I was wondering what political Ottawa consensus is on that question?
Ron
Hi Ron,
Sorry, I got you mixed up with RTJ in the reply thread. Apologies.
D.
Hi Ron. I too understand the difference between party constitution and the Canadian constitution. Indeed, that was the point I was making. A political party cannot “[make] things awful for the proper functioning on Canadian democracy” because they are not, in themselves, actually part of the legally defined democratic apparatus. The exist solely to serve their own interests (getting their guys elected), and can be as dictatorial and stupid as they like. That’s their prerogative. It’s our prerogative to notice their behaviour and vote them out at the next election.
Dale – I don’t think you take criticism very well. I don’t think my comment was written in an intemperate or personal way, and I certainly did not call or imply you were a moron.
You work in parliament. Clearly you know a lot about it’s procedure and Canadian politics in general. People writing and blogging about parliamentary procedure and it’s implications for government power is a good thing. Even better is polite, if spirited, debate.
My point was that the internal machinations of political party apparatus have nothing to do with democracy. They’re entirely the party’s business. Whether they choose their leader by one member one vote by pulling names out of a hat is all the same so far as the totality of the Canadian constitution is concerned*. Therefore “once again [the LPC have] made things awful for the proper functioning on Canadian democracy” is not, I feel, a particularly fair or helpful comment.
My own feeling is the changes have made things somewhat better for the operating of the LPC as a successful electoral organisation, which is their objective. It’s interesting to ask whether Justin Trudeau would have been picked as leader under a previous convention system, or by the caucus (a rump of just 30-odd politicians who were not necessarily the best or brightest, remember). Very anecdotally, I know a lot of traditional members were rushing to vote for anybody but Trudeau at the leadership election. It was the ‘supporters’ who voted for Trudeau. Trudeau was clearly the right choice for the Liberals, in so far as he won them a large majority, so I’d argue the supporters did a pretty bang up job of reflecting the desires of Canadians, rather than internal party prejudices.
You wrote an interesting article. I disagree with the main thrust of it, and I suggested some reasons why an alternative view might be reasonable. No reason for you to take offence.
*”Constitution” meaning the combination of statute law, procedure, custom and precedent that makes up our actual constitution.
RTJ,
This is where you are 100% completely and totally wrong. Parties are at the heart of Responsible Government, which is the basis of our constitutional framework inherited from the United Kingdom as stated in the preamble to the BNA Act. They are how confidence is determined and maintained. Without parties, our system could not function, so yes, how they organize themselves is at the heart of how our democratic system functions. You see, it used to be that there were multiple levels of confidence at play – in order for a government to have the confidence of the Commons, the party leader needed to have the confidence of his or her party. When that accountability mechanism was removed in favour of delegated conventions, it affected our entire democratic system. And by removing the accountability mechanisms in parties, it has a ripple effect throughout the entire system. This is not an internal party matter. This affects the whole of our democratic system.
Thanks for your reply. I totally take your argument about a decrease in accountability because of a change in party structure. I don’t necessarily agree – but please don’t for a minute think I don’t get what you’re saying,
Ok – I searched all versions of the BNA plus the 1982 Canada Act. The word ‘party’ is used precisely once, and then not in the context of a political party, but a party in an action. The concept of party is simply absent from all aspects of the constitution – written and otherwise.
The PM needs to enjoy the confidence of the house. In a modern context, that context is invariably expressed as the confidence of their party, as the other parties default to non-confidence. If the Liberal caucus lacks confidence in the PM, it just needs to vote against him on a confidence vote – although I’m sure it would never get that far before the PM was forced to stand down. That’s the same power they had before. The method of election of the party leader has not reduced caucus power by an iota. The ‘caucus confidence’ you speak of, was simply another way of talking about confidence of the house.
if you want to talk about caucus loyalty … why it is that in Canada party rebels – willing to vote against the whip on issues of conscience – do not exist to any significant degree … then I’d be interested in hearing potential solutions. In the UK, backbench rebellions are a pretty common occurrence, and parliamentary debate is the better for it. But I don’t think that cast-iron loyalty is anything to do with party structure.
The traditional explanation is that the relatively small number of politicians in Canada means that patronage eliminates the existence of government backbenchers with ‘nothing to lose’ and therefore a willingness to vote against the whip. In the UK there are a large number of MPs who will never get appointed to anything … and may have been sitting on the backbenches ignored by their leader for decades. Why not rebel once in a while, especially if an up-and-coming star can promise you a post?
The more interesting point, then, is not so much that caucuses have lost the ability to hold their leader to account, so much as caucuses in Canada just don’t rebel against their leaders anyway. They definitely could rebel … but they don’t. Finding a way to free the backbenchers is something I could get behind.
RJT,
The word “party” wouldn’t be in the written constitution, because Responsible Government as our constitutional framework inherited from the United Kingdom is by its very definition unwritten. Trying to find it in the written text is a lost cause. That doesn’t make Responsible Government any less valid than the written portions because our constitution is a blended form that has both written and unwritten portions. And no, caucus confidence is not the same as the confidence of the chamber, nor is it interchangeable. Leaders can be replaced without the government falling. It happens all the time. And restoring to backbenchers the ability to hold their own leader to account would be a great way to free them from feeling beholden to someone who is not accountable to them.