Unravelling socks and BC politics- Part Three
By Peter Ewart
Monday, November 29, 2010 03:44 AM
by Peter Ewart
This is the third and final part in this series. For Part One, click here. For Part 2 click here.
Few things are, or at least should be, more honourable than being chosen by the voters of a riding to represent them as an MLA in the provincial legislature.
Hypothetically speaking, what should be the qualities of such an MLA? How about courageousness, outspokenness and a deep commitment to the interests of the voters of the riding and of the province?
But is that the case in the political process of today? Many don’t think so. Indeed, some voters put politicians, including both MPs and MLAs, in the category of least trustworthy of occupations. Not a few people accuse them of cowardice, timidity, dishonesty and blind obedience to their party leadership.
How has this situation come about? Why is what should be the most honourable profession considered to be a dishonourable one?
In the past several months in British Columbia, we have been witness to the defection or expulsion of three MLAs from the opposition BC NDP caucus and the governing BC Liberal party caucus. These MLAs include Bob Simpson, Blair Lekstrom, and, most recently, Bill Bennett. In the case of the BC NDP, the expulsion of Simpson has contributed to a serious division in the party whereby 13 NDP MLAs have remained silent about endorsing the party leader, Carole James.
What was the "crime" of all these 16 or so "dissident" MLAs from both the NDP and Liberal Party? On the surface, it doesn't seem to be too much of a "crime" at all. They were simply speaking their minds about party policy and criticizing certain activities of their leaders. With the exception of Bill Bennett's impassioned, but many would say justifiable, outburst against the Premier, all of this criticism was done, at least in the beginning, in a relatively mild manner.
But the way that these two political parties have treated their "dissidents" exposes a serious flaw in the political process of the province, one that has generated great tension within the parties themselves, as well as voter anger and animosity towards politicians in general.
The political process seems like it should be straightforward. Voters elect their MLA; and, then, that MLA, presumably full of enthusiasm and fresh ideas, goes down to the Legislature in Victoria and represents the voters of her or his riding, and of the province as a whole.
But there is a fly in the ointment. Something gets in the way of what should be a "natural connection" between voter, MLA and the legislature. That is, of course, the party system which has been superimposed upon the political process.
Under the party system, it is not the voters of the riding who get to select candidates, it is the local members of the political party riding association (and even, sometimes, the party leader). These riding association members often represent less than 1% of the riding population.
To get the party nomination, the candidate must swear allegiance to the party platform and the party leader. And thus the humbling of the candidate begins, in a ritual that is reminiscent of a serf pledging loyalty to a feudal lord. Or to put it another way, it resembles the "breaking" of the spirit of a wild horse.
Then the election takes place and, if the candidate is elected, some more "humbling" and "breaking in" follows. The MLA now is under the authority, not just of the party brass, but also of the party legislative whip who is charged with making sure that the MLA votes in line with what the party leadership deems to be appropriate. Failure to adhere to strict "party line" voting in the legislature can lead to various punishments, ranging from being denied seats on legislative committees and other perks (some of them financial) to outright expulsion and "banishment" from the party, with an accompanying "shunning" by other MLAs and party members.
And, so it is that, instead of being a "tribune of the people" for her or his riding, the MLA becomes a robot of the party. Rather than taking the concerns of the people in the riding to the provincial legislature, often as not, the reverse happens. The MLA's main task is reduced to selling party policy to the voters.
Nowhere is this more evident than in an election campaign. Take the example of the BC NDP in the 2009 election. Candidates who ran in the Central Interior of the province had much political "fodder" to draw upon. Under a BC Liberal government, the region was undergoing the worst forest industry downturn ever. Dozens of mill closures. Thousands of layoffs. School closures. Service cuts. Mortgage foreclosures. The decimation of entire settlements such as Mackenzie, a proud town which, in the past, had pumped out huge revenues for the provincial government. And so on. The defeat of the Liberal MLAs should have been a slam-dunk.
However, instead of drawing upon this experience to develop made-in-the-north policy, candidates were given a policy binder developed by the party brass with all kinds of input from unelected party officials, "spin doctors", and pollsters, based in the Lower Mainland. If candidates deviated from the crushing mediocrity of the policy binder by even an inch, they were called to task. This resulted in some candidates literally "gluing" themselves to the policy binder to the point that frustrated journalists and constituents pleaded with them to set the binder aside and simply speak their mind on issues.
Candidates were also cautioned to stay away from talking too much about "economic issues" because, according to the party "spin doctors", this might remind voters of the NDP's mishandling of the economy while in office back in the 1990s. Instead of layoffs and mill closures being a main issue in the campaign in this region, such Vancouver-based issues as "affordable housing" became front and centre. And thus, despite the fact that the candidates were certainly dedicated and hardworking, they were soundly defeated.
Is it any wonder that an NDP MLA like Bob Simpson, who has a detailed knowledge of the forest industry and other economic issues in this region, might bridle or even rebel against such idiocy?
But it is not just NDP candidates who suffer from this flawed political process. Liberal Party candidates were defeated in the 1996 election in this region precisely because Gordon Campbell, leader of the party, had pledged to sell BC Rail. Opposition to this sale was deep and widespread amongst the voters of the Central Interior and North, and, as a result, Liberal candidates lost ridings that they should have been able to win easily.
Of course, by the time of the 2001 election, Gordon Campbell had reversed his pledge to sell the railway and apologized to the voters of the region. A year or so later, it must have been quite a bleak morning for the newly-elected Liberal MLAs in the Interior to wake up and find out that Premier Campbell, in still another stunning reversal, was going to auction off the publicly-owned railway after all.
With the exception of MLA Paul Nettleton, who was eventually expelled from the Liberal caucus, the Liberal MLAs of the region had the humiliating task of trying to justify this major flip-flop and outright treachery to angry constituents. This cost them both votes and even longstanding friendships.
It must also have been quite a morning to wake up to find out that Premier Campbell, just two months after the 2009 election, was planning to impose the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on a unsuspecting voting public. This "gift" from the Premier, which just as well might have been "written on a napkin" the night before, probably means that the political careers of many Liberal MLAs are over for good. Nonetheless, all Liberal MLAs, as part of "party discipline", have been expected to get out on the stumps and "sell" this hated tax. Surely, some part of their soul must be deeply embarrassed and insulted by all of this.
Is it any wonder that Liberal MLA Blair Lekstrom resigned as cabinet minister? Is it any wonder that MLA Bill Bennett blew his top?
Political parties can be very useful mechanisms for the people of the province, especially in the area of developing ideas and policies, and educating voters on issues. In that regard, there is nothing wrong with parties having their own kinds of discipline and rules of operation. Let them function as they so choose.
However, as the examples above demonstrate, a big problem arises when this political party "system" is imposed on the electoral process and directly interferes with the relationship between voter and MLA.
Thus the "unravelling" that is taking place in either party is not over. Nor can it ever be over, until party-domination of the electoral and legislative process itself is ended. In the early years of the province, British Columbians put a non-party process in place, where MLAs, in effect, represented their ridings as independents. That system was eventually overturned by the establishment political parties and their bagmen, hailing from out East.
Perhaps it’s time to consider a modern-day version of what was the original impulse of British Columbians to have as their democratic structure.
This article is the last in the "Unravelling socks and BC politics" series.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based 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: sardonic on November 29 2010 6:48 AM
A week ago, I would've said that jokingly. Like, ha ha ... how could that be?
But that was before I learned via Island Tides newspaper, of Gordon Campbell's monstrous campaign to "unravel" all of British Columbia's natural resources ...
How could that be? Well, Island Tides gave me permission to re-post the information they dug up about the new Ministry of Natural Resource Operations ... the so-called "One-stop shopping spot" for anybody anywhere to obtain BC government permits to do anything they please to any British Columbia river, lake, mountain, forest ...
The story is here:
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
and I'd surely like to hear Peter Ewart's suggestions for wtf British Columbians can do next to save the beloved province.
I've been saying for a long time that partisan politics is a cruel joke played upon the trusting voters to keep them busy squabbling with one another (Me good, You bad) while bad things unfold without anyone noticing.
Thanks, Peter, for sending us back into BC history for evidence that we've had independent, non-partisan representation in the legislature ... and can have it again.
.