Unravelling Socks and BC Politics - Part 1
By Peter Ewart
Monday, November 22, 2010 03:45 AM
by Peter Ewart
If the BC Liberal and the BC New Democrat parties were compared to socks, they would look quite threadbare and frayed lately with even some "holes" in their heels and toes. At least that is the way many voters see it.
But being threadbare and frayed is one thing. Actually having a sock unravel is a much more serious state of affairs. And that is what appears to be happening these days with MLAs defecting or being expelled from both parties, as well as internal divisions widening.
Why has this come about? At the heart of it is a profound crisis in the party system of governance that dominates British Columbian politics. Under this system, MLAs must swear their allegiance, first and foremost, to their party brass rather than to the voters who elected them. This allegiance is enforced by the party whip who exacts obedience through a variety of mechanisms and punishments.
It is interesting to note that all four of the MLAs - Blair Lekstrom, Bob Simpson, Bill Bennett, and Vicki Huntington - who have left their party caucuses insisted on frankly speaking their mind on issues like the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), as well as on other concerns of the voters in their ridings.
Such behaviour is unacceptable in the extreme party system of the province which demands that MLAs act like trained seals for the party leadership rather than representatives of the voters. Voters cast their ballot on one day every four years. For the other 1400 days or so, they must endure a kind of elected party dictatorship.
One of the distortions in this system is that it gives the Premier huge power over the province, approaching that of an absolute monarch. Former Premier Dave Barrett even acknowledged that when he and his government won election back in 1972. "The Queen gave me the whole bag", he said later.
By this he admitted that the office of the Premier held sway over the entire cabinet, legislature, and government apparatus of the province, which, in many ways, are reduced to simply rubber stamping the decisions of the Premier and his office. "Off with their heads," if any dare to speak their mind or disagree.
This explains why the Premier can emerge from behind closed doors and dump a tax like the HST on the legislature and the people of the province. Or how he can conduct a massive and unprecedented re-organization of government ministries and keep his own Ministers in the dark. Or how he can promise not to sell BC Rail and then turn around and do the opposite. And the examples of such dictatorial behaviour go on and on.
This extreme centralization of power makes government much more susceptible to influence from vested interests and lobbyists of various kinds, as well as party insiders and "backroom boys". The BC Rail trial was just starting to get into the hidden mechanics of this kind of influence peddling when it came to an abrupt halt, leaving many puzzling, and potentially embarrassing questions, unanswered.
The tragedy is that people get so used to this state of affairs in politics that they think that this is the normal way in which democracy and "good government" should operate. As the old saying goes, "we've been down so long it looks like up."
How and why does this situation persist year after year? The answer is that, despite all of their "fighting" with each other, both the BC Liberals and BC NDP have collaborated to establish what is in effect a party "cartel" system which protects the privileges of both, like an agreement between corporate monopolies.
The purpose of this "cartel" system is to maintain the dominance of the two parties over the electoral process. This is done at the expense, first and foremost, of the voters of the province, as well as independent and small party candidates who might threaten that monopoly.
Under the current system, the establishment parties dominate the selection of candidates. For an MLA to get elected, he or she must "kiss the ring" of the party leader and pledge loyalty to the party above all. Individual qualifications of candidates become secondary or, even in some ridings, almost irrelevant.
What is surprising to many is that this party monopoly is maintained using taxpayer funding. For example, the parties have established the "four MLA rule". What this means is that unless you establish yourself as a "recognized" party and unless this party has four sitting MLAs, you will not be permitted access to potentially millions of dollars in taxpayer paid "research money", as well as additional staffing.
Furthermore, as various commentators have pointed out (see Vaughan Palmer, Vancouver Sun, Nov. 18), the established parties get substantial amounts of extra money (again, all taxpayer funded) for the leader's salary, as well as for the salaries of "house leader", "party whip" and "caucus chair". The established parties also are entitled to "recognition in question period" and "seats on all committees". And, of course, they set their own salaries as MLAs.
What is important to note here is that all of the above "cushy" arrangements have been put in place over the years by the parties themselves.
Thus it is a formidable task for independents and candidates for small parties to run for the provincial legislature. The two established parties already have a huge taxpayer funded research and staffing advantage even before an election is called. It is as if they have made the legislature into a feudal castle surrounded by high walls and a deep moat.
The establishment parties are especially zealous in making sure that voters are kept out of the process as well. That is why both the NDP and Liberals have made the "initiative and recall" legislation difficult and cumbersome for voters to utilize. And why they resist any serious attempts to reform the process and reduce taxpayer-funded party privilege.
And thus so it is that any MLAs of the two establishment parties who choose to buck the system or stand up for the voters in their ridings get turfed out and sent to political Siberia.
However, as the current crisis in both parties is demonstrating, the status quo of big party monopoly is starting to unravel. The voters of the province are extremely dissatisfied with the current party process and the system of governance.
As has been shown by the wide popularity of the anti-HST movement, people want more control over the decision-making process of government; they want mechanisms that empower rather than disempower; and they want an end to party dictatorship and monopoly.
What do you do when socks (and political parties) begin to unravel? One alternative is to try to sew them back up again just as they were before (as both Gordon Campbell and Carole James are attempting).
Another alternative is to go to Walmart and buy some new ones that are made in the U.S., China or some other country. Of course, there is no guarantee that such socks will fit properly or that they, too, won't unravel.
And still another is for the people of BC to design and knit brand new socks that are made precisely for the particular conditions of our province. As the current crisis in party governance continues, we need to especially consider this last option.
Stay tuned for "Part 2" of "Unravelling socks and BC politics".
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer who lives in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: whatintheheck on November 22 2010 6:02 AM