[To see the submission in its original format, see the linked
document below]
Are We Fixing The Problem The Right Way?
My presentation to the Citizens’ Assembly is in the
following five parts:
Part one asks what problem are we trying to fix?
Part two gives three examples of what is not working;
Part three provides solutions;
Part four looks into the future; and
Part five closes with four recommendations.
Part one: What problem are we
trying to fix?
First, we need to understand what our democracy is.
It is based on the British parliamentary model known as the
Westminster system of responsible government. This means that the
executive, referring to the premier and cabinet ministers, is
responsible to the legislature, and that legislative members are
answerable to the citizens. Currently this is not
happening.
Normally, party officials approve or veto their local party
candidates. If a majority is elected from this pool, an
executive is selected which forms the government. In
turn the government tables bills in the legislature which, if
defeated, means that the government is defeated, and this results
in a general election.
However, elected party representatives play an inconsequential
role. They rarely or never vote against their
executive. Why? The answer is because of
party lines and party discipline.
Consequently, they are denied free votes. The result is
irresponsible government and an elected
dictatorship. This is the real democratic
deficit because the Trojan horse party system undermines an
accountable parliament. Therefore, the problem we need to fix is to
restore authority back to our legislators in order that they can
hold the executive accountable.
Part two: What is not working?
The most undemocratic position is the premier.
Instead of being responsible to the elected party caucus, and to
the legislature, the premier can fire any minister, expel any
elected member from their party, and literally ignore everybody
else. Not bad work for someone selected outside of
parliament by a process which has no authority to hold the premier
accountable in the legislature. Giving more power to
political parties via proportional representation is unable to fix
this disconnect.
Another myth is that fixed election dates represents some
democratic innovation. However, a horrible executive
can be defeated anytime, by a majority negative vote in the
legislature. However, under the fifth column party
system, this rarely or never happens. Fixed
election dates demonstrate the total arrogance of the executive
because their political party rubber stamp legislature is
useless.
Here is the final example of what is not working.
Another rock not unturned is private party financing, which is
an accident waiting to happen. Currently, political
parties are usually financed by wealthy individuals, corporations,
and unions. Consequently, political parties are
beholden to these special interests where one hand washes the other
with special legislation, tax loopholes, monopolies,
and other political favors. Without redressing this
cancer, giving more power to more political parties via
proportional representation will only increase the invisible
influence of these financiers.
Part three: Solutions.
Is there an alternative to the political party system of
governance? The answer is yes. Imagine, if
the Citizens’ Assembly was instead our legislative
assembly. Imagine, if you were elected as
independent legislators with no political party
affiliation. Next, you would elect an
executive. Now because the premier and cabinet
ministers are selected by you, amazingly, this executive is finally
accountable to you. This executive now must submit
bills for your approval. Because you sit as independent
legislators with a free vote, finally you have real democratic
power. The great result is
responsible government.
Question: Are there examples where responsible
government works? The answer is yes. Two
examples are with the governments of the Northwest Territories and
Nunavut. In their Westminister systems, all
of the elected members are independents who with their free votes,
elect a responsible executive. Another example is with
our British Columbia local governments. While not a
Westminster model, the majority of counselors are independents and
are not slaves to any municipal party or slate.
We should not forget that many older democracies once operated
without political parties. We have been fooled into thinking we
need political parties; we should not allow this tail
to wag the dog because elected private party representatives have
defaulted on their fiduciary obligation to serve the public
interest.
Part four: Here is a brief look into the
future.
We need to have our eyes wide open on global trends which one
day will enter our back yard. One trend is continental
integration which is progressing around the world. For
example, the European Union is expanding from fifteen to
twenty-five countries. In North America, our Canada,
USA and Mexican Free Trade Agreement is moving towards a broader
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.
With continental integration also emerges a continental
parliament. For example, the European Union has a
European Parliament. In the future, we could anticipate
a North American, or Parliament of the Americas. Beyond
this, the United Nations needs democratic reform. One
day we should envision a world democratic federation
which would include an elected world legislative
assembly.
As you think about electoral reform, you need to stop and think
about some universal democratic principles which an electoral
system must reinforce. Therefore I would
like to volunteer the following universal democratic
principle:
Sovereignty rests with the people, who as equal global citizens,
have a universal birthright to individually exercise their
exclusive monopoly of informed consent through their ballot
cast. Only they, the people, can provide a collective
democratic mandate to delegate their majority authority to their
individual geographic representative. This materially
represents the consent of the governed, without which no government
on earth is legitimate.
This principle means that one person equals one
vote. It also means that individuals run for public
office for their area.
Just as our BC electoral system is integrated with our federal
and municipal electoral systems, similarly, it is also integrated
with the electoral systems of our American neighbors.
While they are under a republican form of government, they have
instead advocated for parliamentary democracies in Palestine and
Iraq. Furthermore, both our Canadian and American
constitutions wisely make no mention whatsoever on the role of
political parties.
We need to preserve this harmonized electoral systems for the
potential of future trans-national parliaments. Let us
spare future generations the agony of re-inventing a uniform
electoral system. If you ignore these
democratic principles, then the unintended consequences will be the
regrettable creation of future continental and global political
parties. Your thinking today can help set a good
foundation for emerging parliamentary democracies for tomorrow.
Finally, part five: Here are four
recommendations for your consideration.
Recommendation number one:
Do not change our electoral system. It is
based on the universal democratic principles where one person
equals one vote, and where individuals run for office who represent
a geographic constituency. As is, our system leaves the
door open for independent candidates to run for public office, and
only they can make government democratically
accountable. Our electoral system is not broke, but
instead it is corrupted by political parties. However,
over time Citizens will abandon these door mats. It is irrelevant
if political parties predictably complain about the unfairness of
our electoral system. Furthermore, the invalid objection that the
First Past the Post system manufactures electoral majorities is
redundant because elected individuals still freely select or
endorse the executive. Also, be careful that your
evaluation criteria do not steer you down a predetermined
proportional representation outcome.
Recommendation number two:
If you recommend any changes, then the only improvement is a second
round run off election between the top two candidates if
required. This new majority system would guarantee that
the elected legislator has 50% plus one of the votes cast
consistent with the consent of the governed.
Recommendation number three:
If you must recommend major changes, be certain that it provides a
level playing field so ordinary people can run as independent
candidates. Otherwise, it would deny the
people the right to chose a government of the people.
Finally, recommendation number
four:
The Citizens’ Assembly has some unfinished
business. The cancer of private financing of political
parties needs your chemotherapy. The
Citizens’ Assembly should request the provincial
government to extend your mandate, to make recommendations on a new
system of public financing of party candidates and independent
individuals so both can run for public office on a
level playing field.
To close, I would like to thank each member of the
Citizens’ Assembly for your public service.
Remember, the world is watching what you do and your important work
will affect generations to follow. Be certain that you
are on the right side of the future so history can judge you
well.
Thank you.
levelCMS