[To see the submission in its original format, see
the linked document below]
Introduction
I recognize that the mandate of this Assembly is to research and
make recommendations about elections to the Legislature. You will
have received many submissions advocating a broad range of
electoral systems to replace the established
“firstpastthepost” system in British
Columbia.
The election of a legislature is rudimentary. It is the
lifeblood of a democracy, but it is not the oxygen on which
democratic life depends. Democracy’s oxygen, I would
argue, is citizens taking responsibility to govern themselves.
I am going to present the argument that reforming the electoral
system in British Columbia may well lead to the creation of a
legislature that more accurately reflects the political views of
the electorate on the day of the election. However, such a
parliament will only marginally strengthen the democratic
credentials of broad public policy decisions made and implemented
by government.
I am going to argue that elections need to be coupled with
referenda to provide a foundation for a healthy democracy.
Retrospective Elections
Regular elections ensure that the makeup of a legislature
reflects the society it governs. The laws governing people should
change with the moods, preferences, attitudes, and priorities of
the society being governed. The exchange of ideas in political
debates involving citizens at the community level provides the
framework for the evolution of a democratic society. In a democracy
laws are not imposed on society, they reflect society’s
consensus. But that is not how governance has been evolving in
British Columbia. Governments use parliamentary majorities and the
power of the law to impose their leadership. The populace is left
with no choice but to follow their government. Sometimes we follow
in quiet resignation, and sometimes under loud and violent
protests.
A century ago, campaigning for election meant that politicians
and citizens engaged in lengthy debates on policy and principles.
Today marketing rather than debating is how I would describe
political campaigning. More often than not election campaigns are
not debates on policies and principles; they are arguments about
the performance of outgoing governments. Was the defeat of the
Liberal Party under John Turner a rejection of policies advocated
by Mr. Turner as Liberal leader, or was it a judgment of the
performance of Pierre Trudeau’s government? Was the
defeat of the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership
of Kim Campbell a rejection of policies advocated by Ms. Campbell
as Progressive Conservative leader, or was it a judgment of the
performance of Brian Mulroney’s government? The same
question can be asked in British Columbia. Was the defeat of the
Social Credit Party under the leadership of Rita Johnston a
rejection of policies advocated by Ms. Johnston as Social Credit
leader, or was it a judgment of the performance of Bill Vander
Zalm’s government? Was the defeat of the New Democratic
Party under the leadership of Ujjal Dosanjh a rejection of policies
advocated by Mr. Dosanjh as New Democratic leader, or was it a
judgment of the performance of Glen Clark’s
government?
We are again witnessing retrospective electioneering at the
federal level. Only a few months ago every pundit in the country
forecast that the Liberal Party under the leadership of Paul Martin
would easily form a majority government in Ottawa. Then the Auditor
General spoke. There is far less certainty about a Liberal majority
today. Should it pass that the Liberal Party under Paul
Martin’s leadership forms a minority government, or
forms the Official Opposition, would that be a rejection of Liberal
policies under Paul Martin, or would it be a judgment of the
performance of Jean Chrétien’s
government?
When elections judge past performance rather than providing a
direction for the future, legislatures cease to reflect the
citizenry’s vision for the future. They become instead
quasi default assemblies, assemblies of people elected above all to
rid ourselves of former legislators. Elections thus take on a de
facto retrospective purpose. We vote to express our displeasure
with what happened in the past rather than voting to express a
vision for the future. We use elections to punish legislators for
what they did, and in doing so we miss the only opportunity we have
to provide new legislators with policy directions to follow. Thus
we find ourselves caught in a neverending cycle of throwing out
“bums” without apparent concern that, in
doing so, we achieve little more than electing new
“bums.”
Referendum
The role of a legislature is not to determine what is
“good for the people” but to debate and
enact laws. Laws should never be used to push and pull citizens in
a direction society is not ready to go. Laws are fences, boundaries
for the policy objectives set by the people, boundaries within
which society may freely live, develop, evolve, and express itself.
I am paraphrasing John Ralston Saul: “statutes do
not exist because everyone would act in a criminal manner without
them. They are there to lay out general social
standards and, above all, to deal with a small minority who have
always rejected responsible behaviour.”
Any electoral system will in the end produce a government. If a
single party does not form a majority, there will be a coalition or
an entente cordiale to provide a mandate to govern. Societies with
electoral systems that produce multiparty legislatures, e.g.,
France or Israel, still end up with governments capable of pursuing
deeply divisive policies with the potential to ignite strong and
sometimes violent opposition.
It is an oversimplification to suggest that all the public
policy issues of a complex modern society can be boiled down to
three or four options as represented by political parties. Public
policy issues cannot be neatly arranged into groupings. To use
British Columbia issues as an example, it is possible for a
rational person to support the sale of a railway and at the same
time oppose offshore oil exploration. A second person, equally
rational, might support the 2010 Olympics and be opposed to fish
farming. A third person, as rational as the first two, might
support offshore oil exploration and be opposed to the 2010
Olympics. The possibilities of rational and reasoned policy
combinations are as many as there are voting citizens in this
province. I dare say that few voters in British Columbia
wholeheartedly support all policies advocated by one single
political party to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
The referendum is a legitimate public policy formation tool. A
democratic governance system is one where voters have ready access
to a fair and definitive process to determine policy priorities and
direction in major areas of public concern. Then, in a separate
process, they elect the most capable candidates to serve in the
Legislature and construct the statutory framework to enable
government to bring the people’s policy directions to
reality. Regardless of party affiliation, an adept legislator is
capable of contributing to legislation for fish farms with as much
sensitivity to the public interest as she would to legislation for
the public ownership of a railway.
Combining referenda and elections separates personalities from
issues. The combination of the two allows citizens to set the tone
and direction of public policy for the Legislature to follow, and
to elect able candidates to develop appropriate legislation to
implement these policies. The referendum is a tool of democracy if
citizens have ready access to the process. It is a political toy if
it is under the exclusive control of government. When implemented
as it is in British Columbia’s Recall and Initiative
Act, it is cynical.
The Weimar Republic provided irrefutable proof that elections
are not infallible. Referenda are not without risk either, but
where referenda have been used, even when used in a selfserving
manner by governments asking convoluted questions, citizens seldom
objected to the results. Emotions ran high in the two
Québec sovereignty referenda and in the Charlottetown
Accord referendum. The results, however, were accepted. The people
had spoken.
The Charlottetown debate preceding the referendum involved
citizens far more, and with less cynicism, than did the preceding
Meech Lake debate. The aftermath of the Meech Lake ratification
process and of the ultimate failure of ratification was
longlasting, costly, and divisive. Governments, legislatures,
politicians, and political parties were accused of having caused
damage to the country. Accused by some for having negotiated the
Accord in the first place, and accused by others for having failed
to ratify it. There was no such aftermath to the referendum on the
Charlottetown Accord. The people had spoken. The polemics of the
referendum campaign notwithstanding, citizens and their governments
accepted the result. Life went on.
Proposition
I am asking the Citizens’ Assembly to interpret its
mandate broadly, to reach beyond making recommendations for changes
to the electoral system, and to make recommendations to bolster the
democratic credentials of governance in British Columbia.
I am proposing that you consider the merits of
citizenparticipation in the “What” as well
as in the “Who” of governance.
I am proposing that you consider a recommendation that the
British Columbia Legislature amend the Recall and Initiative Act as
follows:
a) sever Part 2 (Legislative Initiatives) from the
Act and establish that part as a separate statute;
b) amend section 7(1)(b) in Division 1 (Initiative
Petition) of Part 2 to require the support of 10 percent of voters
provincewide for a successful initiative rather than the current
requirement of 10 percent in each electoral district.
levelCMS