[This submission can be viewed in its original format in the
linked document below]
SUBMISSION to THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CITIZENS'
ASSEMBLY
Patrick Conroy, February 15, 2004
PROPOSITION
Though it’s easy to get agreement that
“stable government” is a good thing, there
are interpretations of this seemingly straightforward term that can
mislead us into incorrectly favoring some electoral systems over
others.
I propose that the most important notion to be considered under
the term “stable government” is that
it’s what governments DO that is important, not the
actual individuals and parties that form the government. More
forcefully put, we shouldn’t care which faces or logos
are in the legislature per se; rather, we should look for ways to
make it more likely that whatever group of individuals and parties
gets into the legislature, it will enact the policies that we as
citizens want them to enact. While it’s true that we
tend to have faith in certain individuals and perhaps parties,
it’s the policies that are the important thing. This
leads to the conclusion that:
It’s not government that should be stable,
but governance.
I further propose that “stable”, if
taken to mean “static”, or
“mainstream” can be a misleading and even
dangerous thing. I propose that we should look for ways to make it
more likely that the legislature’s governance responds
to changes and nuances in what citizens tell their representatives
they want, through the only voice they really have –
the votes they cast at election time. This leads to the conclusion
that:
By stability we mean representative
responsiveness.
OBSERVATIONS
Under the current first-past-the-post system, there is a wealth
of evidence that majority governments tend to pursue partisan,
party-based agendas for the first part of their mandate, and shift
to whatever will get the party elected in the latter part of their
term. The losing parties get to complain about this, but could be
expected do the same thing if they were elected in a majority
position. It’s the electoral system that forces this
behavior.
This seems to be particularly true of British Columbia, with its
highly polarized political scene, and leads to seemingly inevitable
swings from one polarized agenda to the opposite on a regular
basis. This is harmful to province building, harmful to our
communities, harmful to our economy, and drives citizens away from
participation in the democratic process.
Note that minority/coalition governments, while not favored by
parties and tunnel-visioned individuals, are only bad things if the
parties are motivated by gaining a majority at the next election
(which is always true for first-past-the-post systems).
In this case, most of their energy is directed toward showing their
minority partners to be uncooperative and worse.
As a historical note, though Italy has had an average or more
than one minority government per year since World War II, the
policies of this endless string of governments have been remarkably
stable in this period (more than we can say for BC and Canada!). If
you remember that governance, not government, is what matters, the
electoral system practiced by the Italians is actually rather
successful.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
If what we mean by “stable government”
is actually “representative, responsive
governance”, then:
The Citizen’s Assembly must favor those
electoral systems that put into the voters’ handsthe
most effective means to cause whatever group gets into the
legislature to respond to the will of the people as expressed in
their voting patterns.
Further:
The Citizen’s Assembly must not be dissuaded
by the argument that a given electoral system tends to produce more
minority/coalition governments than another.
levelCMS