Submission CHARLES-LUNDAAHL-1335 (Online)

The root of the problem with government in BC today, and throughout much of the democratic world, is not the method by which parties are elected, but the very party system on which government has now become so firmly structured. [3 pages]

The root of the problem with government in British Columbia today, and indeed throughout much of the democratic world, is not the method by which parties are elected, but the very party system on which government has now become so firmly structured.

The practical purpose of democratic government is (or should be) simply to determine the needs and wishes of the people and to see that these are met consistent with majority approval. In the simplest terms, if the consensus is that a particular road should be built or that health care should remain public, government should endeavour to comply. This is democracy stripped bare, devoid of ideologies. Easy to say, more difficult to do, it is nevertheless how most of us would, I believe, wish to see our own communities run. By extension, it is also how most would wish to see their province or their country run, these merely being communities on a grander scale.

The trouble is, the wishes of the people and the wishes of the parties are frequently at odds. True, insuring that the electoral method most accurately reflects majority wishes brings us closer to the democratic ideal. Further, the existence of an official opposition goes a long way towards achieving a balance. But when government is motivated by ideology rather than by true consensus, real democracy becomes impaired.

In short, too often democracy and the party system are in a conflict of interest.

The solution, I and a growing number of citizens are beginning to realize, is to abandon the party system altogether. In an ever complex world it is no longer relevant to think in terms of ideologies, of left or right or of somewhere in between. This type of thinking is not only divisive but corrupts our ability for independent thought. (The worst demonstration of this perhaps being those pathetic legions of politicians who vote with their parties rather than stand by, or even dare to form, their own beliefs.) Remove the parties and you weaken the ideological stranglehold. And if history has not yet provided enough evidence of the inherent dangers of ideology, I fear it never will.

And then there is the issue of accountability which forever rears its ugly head. Just how accountable can you make a politician when the party machine is there to back him, to close ranks behind him, to protect him from serious scrutiny? Remove the party and, while not necessarily guaranteeing transparency, you at least help to draw back the blinds.

Consider too the colossal waste and expense involved in party campaigns -- the advertising, the rhetoric, the lies. And, more importantly, the waste and instability caused when one party rises to power and proceeds to dismantle the programs erected by a former government, only to replace them with their own vision of society -- all at our expense. Remove political parties and none of this need occur. The pendular swings from one ideology to the next cease to be. The work still gets done. Changes are still made. But the decisions are no longer ideologically driven because now they are the products of diverse minds with not one particular mind-set but differing ideals.

With the dissolution of the party system would come too an end to the absurd leadership rubbish that further clutters the road to real democracy, nonsense that has perhaps reached its absolute nadir in that ridiculous political cockfight known as the Leadership Debate. The question is, under a system in which the main role of government is to comply with the wishes of the majority, what role, beyond that of chief administrator, would a leader really need to perform? Certainly not that of public persuader, of smooth-tongued sales representative for whatever happens to be the particular pitch of the day. Gone with the parties would be the party leaders, the media glitter, the big smiles, the inflated egos, the paternalism and the power. Now, doesn't that sound like something to strive for?

And finally, let's not forget the opportunities for corruption, for self-advancement, for political patronage that exist within the party system. All the stuff we've grown so accustomed to by now we can hardly be bothered to feel indignation for. Would government without parties remove these blights on democracy entirely? No, of course not. Not in our lifetime anyway. But they would, I believe, make them easier to spot - and a darned sight easier to weed out than under the present system.

To say that the world today is very different to that of 50 or even 25 years ago is clearly no exaggeration. What has changed almost more than anything is communications technology. With today's technology we can distribute or find the information we require within minutes, rather than days, weeks or more. Similarly we can measure public opinion in record time. We no longer have to stand on street corners, go from door to door, rent halls or even make phone calls to gauge the public pulse. All this being so, democracy is more attainable today than at any other time in history. It is entirely possible, within a province such as B.C. (or for that matter within a country such as Canada) to permit every eligible citizen to register his or her opinion on every important issue confronting government. It is this technological revolution that has transformed the political reality. It is the same revolution that has rendered political parties redundant, the dinosaurs of our time.

Several other submissions have observed that we need only look towards the Northwest Territories and Nunavut to witness government without parties. I suggest we do not even have to look this far. Most of us have regions and municipalities that function quite nicely without the need for party divisions. Somehow they seem to do OK. So why should it not be the same for provincial and national governments? Surely only because they've been hijacked by political parties. And political parties have seldom been motivated by what the people really want but, rather, by what they believe the people ought to want. In other words, by their own particular agendas.

I suggest, therefore, that the first step towards attaining real democracy is not so much to tinker with the electoral method but, rather, to remove the root cause of so many of the political ills which beset us today. An elected independent representative for a given area would be exclusively and directly responsible for, and answerable to, his or her constituents. This in itself would, I believe, be conducive to a higher level of accountability. I further suggest that removal of the impersonal party machine would greatly enhance the willingness to participate in the political process among the growing ranks of the politically disillusioned.

Secondly I suggest that, in order to maintain stability and continuity in government, elections be staggered throughout the province, rather than being held simultaneously. A nonparty system would render this a simple matter. Elections for the entire province could take place over several years. This way, there would always be at least half the number of members/representatives in government as there were prior to an election. No longer could a government resort to the much favoured excuse that the preceding government left them with a mess to clear up. Nor could the other excuse of 'being new to the game' be used in feeble defense of error.

Thirdly I suggest that executive members of government be elected from all elected representatives and by all elected representatives, the positions to be periodically reviewed.

Finally, I suggest that, through available technology, every effort be made to engage public participation in the political process and that this, not party ideologies, become the real basis on which government decision are made. In this, the nonpartisanship of elected representatives would be pivotal to success.

In conclusion I urge that, for British Columbia to become the flagship for true democracy, the Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform should give serious attention to the concept of government without parties. By combining a nonparty system of government with a commitment to achieve real public consensus we will, I believe, draw several steps closer to attaining true democracy in this province. How we elect the parties is no longer the primary issue. The real issue is : Do we need to elect them at all?