Re: “Voters’ interests can’t be ignored,” Dec. 30.
The problems you describe are deeply important for the future of our democracy. Fortunately, there is a simple change that will ease the stranglehold of party discipline.
As Andrew Coyne has explained, about 50 years ago, Elections Canada wanted to be sure that particular candidates were endorsed by the party they claimed to represent. The intent was good but the implementation had a serious flaw: The power to endorse a person’s candidacy was given to the party’s caucus leader. It should have been given to the party’s board of directors.
The party board leads an organization that is based on party members in constituency associations.
The constituency associations elect candidates. However, the caucus leader can refuse to endorse a candidate, as Stephen Harper did in the last federal election. The effect is that the leader can intimidate MPs. The MPs can’t behave independently because the leader has the ultimate weapon of refusing future endorsement. MPs become “nobodies” and are unable to defend the interests of their constituents in Ottawa.
We have the ridiculous situation in which the caucus leader chooses the caucus instead of the caucus choosing its leader. This leads to a presidential form of government, as Harper has now implemented. Canada is the only democracy with this arrangement.
Political parties need a process for removing a candidate who is clearly unsuited. However, the removal process should be conducted by the party structure: constituency associations and the national board.
This change would dramatically improve the relationship between voters and their representatives in Parliament.
David Stocks
Colwood
