Why are so many voters cynical, and unhappy with the democratic
process? Could it be that we have no real experience with
democracy? All our institutions are hierarchical authoritarian, top
down structures. Families are not democratic, churches are not
democratic, schools are not democratic, the work place is not
democratic and corporate structures are not democratic.
All these institutions are political; they are not, however, in
any way democratic. We have no real personal experience with
democracy except the quasi-democratic process of electing the
people who govern us. If we have no personal experience of
democracy in our everyday life, where do we get our idea of what a
democracy is? When I was a teacher I had on the front board for
students to ponder; Why do you think the way you do and who
benefits when you think that way? We believe that our government is
democratic because we choose the people who govern us through our
votes. When we vote we want to believe that our vote counts. Our
vote should matter whether we vote for the party that forms the
government or for another party or candidate.
We, that is the average citizen, have a vague idea of the theory
of democracy but we know that our government does not act in
accordance with our theory of democracy.
The Citizens' Assembly has been convened to do what it can to
rectify the discrepancy between the theory of democracy and the
actual practice of governance. We could liken this to the Civil
Rights movement in the US beginning in the mid 50s and culminating
in the late 60s. In the case of the civil rights movement it was a
discrepancy between the constitution of the US and actual practice
by governments at all levels from federal to municipal. The
Citizens' Assembly is a first step to reconcile the theory of
democracy in governance and the actual practice of governance.
So what recommendation can the Citizens' Assembly make that would
further the cause of each person's vote counting whether that vote
was cast for the party that ultimately won the most seats in the
legislature or was cast for a party or candidate that did not win?
We could believe that fixing this discrepancy would make the
government more democratic.
In this vein of making each person's vote count I'd like to quote
from the aforementioned appendix a statement which appears under
the heading, 'The effectiveness of representatives':
The way our system has evolved, government MLAs do what the
premier tells them to do. Therefore they cannot represent their
electors fairly. Opposition MLA's normally do what their leader
tells them to do as well, though that leader has far less in the
way of sanctions to enforce his or her will.
It would appear from this statement by Gordon Gibson that in order
to make each vote cast meaningful the power of the premier and
opposition leader must be addressed. Yet, Gordon Gibson, in
creating your mandate, specifically stated that you may only
recommend a system that is in accordance with the Westminster
Parliamentary system of governance. When I researched this system
for my presentation to you I found the following characteristic of
the Westminster Parliamentary system:
There are a number of consequences of the Westminster system. They
tend to have extremely well-disciplined legislative parties in
which it is highly unusual and generally suicidal for a legislator
to vote against their party and in which no confidence votes are
very rare. Also, Westminster systems tend to have strong cabinets
in which cabinet members other than the prime minister are
politicians with independent basis of support.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/westminster_system
It is my belief that this is an accurate description of the
Westminster Parliamentary system.
In Gordon Gibson's own words he has stated that the lack of a
democratic government lies in the power of the premier's office and
yet he has mandated that you select a system of vote counting that
is consistent with the undemocratic centralization of power in the
premier's office.
I take my guidance again from the civil rights movement in the US.
It was not the government that pointed out the discrepancy between
the constitution and the actual rights enjoyed by the citizenry but
the people themselves. It was a battle between the governments at
various levels and the common people just wanting their
constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Citizen's Assembly has been
given their mandate from the government ; the Citizens Assembly
therefore is a reactive rather than proactive body. You were not
charged, as the Honourable Geoff Plant Minister Responsible for
democratic reform suggested, and I quote again from the
aforementioned book, this time from a chapter titled, 'Reforming
Government' and authored by the minister himself:
The job of this Assembly would be to assess all possible models
for electing MLA's ; things like preferential ballots, proportional
representation, and even the status quo... We were elected to keep
these commitments and we intend to keep them.
If your mandate was derived from the Minister's statement you would
not be constrained in your search for a more democratic system of
translating votes cast into seats won by the caveat that you are
only allowed to entertain submissions that conform to the
Westminster Parliamentary System or even the Constitution of
Canada; for surely if we are to believe that our system of
government is democratic then if the citizens want to change the
constitution under which they are governed it is within their power
to do so.
If the Citizens' Assembly is to be a democratic body representing
the electorate it should be allowed to consider, 'all possible
models for electing MLAs' as stated by the Minister. You should not
restrict your search for an electoral system to the mandate created
by Gordon Gibson, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, an
extremely biased and partisan individual. Why would Gibson create
restrictions on your assessments of models for electing MLA's and
that restriction being that it must conform to the Westminster
Parliamentary System which centralizes power in the office of
Premier? If the Assembly can only entertain models that conform to
the Westminster System you are not able to asses models for
electing MLA's that are actually in use in Canada in the Northwest
Territories and Nunavut which do not conform to the Westminster
Parliamentary system.
Why does Gordon Gibson not want you to assess the system for
electing MLAs in these two territories?
Could it be that in the election systems of the Northwest
Territories and Nunavat the power of the premier's office and
cabinet is severely restricted due to the fact that it is the
legislative body that elects the premier and cabinet?
My recommendation is that the CA address the biased directive as
inappropriate and that you act as a forum for the people of this
province and not in the interests of special interest groups such
as the Fraser Institute.