– Discussion –
The aftermath of the Ontario provincial elections, in which 56% of registered voters refused to participate in this farce of an election proves the objective antagonism of the working people to this system. They know their situation well, and they recognize very well that no party and candidates, chosen from above, represent their interests. A growing consciousness is daily being instilled in the peoples that this system is archaic and unsuitable to the needs of the present. Do they choose the Conservative “pro-business” anti-social offensive, the Liberal “responsible” privatizing anti-social offensive, the New Democratic “Social Contract” anti-social offensive, or the Green “greening the economy” anti-social offensive? The Ontarian polity has spoken resoundingly — it has wholly rejected all the demagogy of the parliamentary parties.
The only solution for satisfying the immediate needs of the people, and first of all the working class, is to proceed on the course of democratic renewal. It is the work towards self-empowerment, towards a system where their right to elect and be elected is not only written on paper — where they have an equal right to elect and be elected, where wealth and other statuses do not prevail over the popular will when forming the legislature, the legal will.
In this short 1992 article, Discussion exposes the moribund and farcical character of elections, in which the people themselves do not have any more power than to pick among the factional disputes of the capitalist class and refuse to participate en masse. “When the two or more parties fight in the House of Commons,” Discussion points out, “they do not differ in terms of general policy. Usually they quibble with one another about the methods used.” It points out that the task is to organize the alienated into their own political force, through which they can speak in their own name by demanding a government that is representative of their interests, and not that of the obsolescent forces of reaction.
NEPH
* * *
There was a time when to fight for voting rights was considered one of the most important battles. The right to vote was one of the greatest achievements in the sphere of rights. In Canada, for more than half a century now, there has been universal suffrage. At the same time, hardly an election is held in which more than seventy per cent of the electors care to vote. Hardly a government in any country in the world can boast of being elected by a majority of the eligible voters. There has appeared a general discontent with the entire political process, a symptom that symbolizes the demands of the people have far surpassed the possibility of their satisfaction through the current political process. People want not only the right to vote but also to have those who are elected work for them. Not only are they demanding to have a say in how the elections are run but they also want those elected to serve their interests.
Several anomalies are in the present set-up. The first is the entire conception that a political party can constitute the government while another party constitutes the opposition. The two or more parties that constitute these two positions make up the governing body, even though one sits on the government benches and the other in the opposition. When the two or more parties fight in the House of Commons, they do not differ in terms of general policy. Usually they quibble with one another about the methods used. This anomaly was hidden in the beginning. The electorate harboured the hope that if they did not receive satisfaction from the government, everything would be sorted out with the election of the opposition. Such a hope has now disappeared. The anomaly has put this system of “party in power and party or parties in opposition” in disrepute as the fact emerges ever more clearly that only one line is followed by both the party in power and the party in opposition.
For instance, during the [1990-92] recession, the policy of the federal government as presented in the February budget last year [1991] and of the Liberals in Quebec and Newfoundland and the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan all centred on the need to help the private sector as a means of getting out of the recession. What has happened is that a party or parties in power and a party or parties in opposition are on one hand and the people on the other. Politicians versus the people all across Canada has appeared as the divide.
The other anomaly is that when the elections are held, a massive amount of propaganda is done about both party or parties in power and party or parties in opposition. The entire election is run on the basis that one or several of them will be the winners. What the people want never counts. What would help to overcome the economic and political or constitutional crisis is not discussed. Such a thing happens before the elections as well.
In Canada, a large amount of propaganda is about who will win from the Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. It is said that either the “right” may win with the PCs at the head or the “left” with the NDP at the head, which is said to be the party of the left Also, propaganda is unleashed against what is called “fringe” parties, so defined because it is presumed they will go nowhere. Any election held on such a basis necessarily favours both the party or parties in power and the party or parties in opposition, changing nothing after the elections. The right and left divide, which is spoken about, has in fact been transformed into politicians versus the people.
There is another anomaly. The NDP is plagued with the demand that their elected government should follow the platform decided by their conventions. But the NDP governments of Ontario [1990-95] and other provinces claim that, once in office, they represent all the people, so they cannot follow the platform adopted by the conventions. In other words, the agenda is already set for these governments, no matter which party is in power.
What is engineered is that each party, the party or parties in power and the party or parties in opposition, has its task cut out for it. The party or parties in power carry on the agenda already set, while the party or parties in opposition make the maximum noise against them in order to assure the people that should they be put in power they would set everything right. But, once in power, they deliberately present themselves as being the representatives of all people and, as a result, exonerate themselves for backing away from all their promises. What this anomaly has also shown is that a new divide exists between politicians and the people, and the gulf between the two is increasing.
Why is such a thing happening? Why can the politicians not manage the affairs and keep the electorate happy? It can be seen that the current political process, in which each party nominates its candidates and then these candidates run in the elections and whosoever wins the maximum votes is elected, has become archaic.
It is true that the government has to represent the people of the province or of Canada, irrespective of which party they belong to. It would be quite strange if, say, the NDP government in Ontario were to declare itself a government for the members of the NDP only or for the working people alone or some such thing. No government could have the right to govern if it were to do such a thing. What then is the problem? Where does the fault lie? The fault lies in the electoral process, where the party or parties in power and party or parties in opposition are permitted to field their own candidates, selected by their own constituency organizations. If certain changes were to be made to the political process, two of which are the most important, then such anomalies would stop operating.
First Change to the Political Process
The first change would concern who can constitute the government. If the government, by its very nature, is to represent all the people of a province or the country, then no one political party should be permitted to field candidates directly in the constituency elections. All candidates would have to be selected on the basis of elections in the workplaces and factories, educational institutions and so on. Once so elected, they would have to face each other in a constituency election, irrespective of which party they may or may not belong to. Three or more of those, who are fielded as candidates in a particular riding, would be selected to run as candidates in the provincial or federal election.
No political party would be permitted to do any propaganda according to which it is the party that must constitute the power. On the contrary, the duty of parties would be to explain how problems could be solved and to encourage people from workplaces and educational institutions etc. to field candidates for selection and enable those who are liked by the people to win. The entire expense of such a selection process would be borne by the government.
Second Change to the Political Process
The second necessary change is to enact a law according to which no political party would be permitted to constitute the government. There should be no differentiation between a party in power and a party or parties in opposition. The members of parliament should elect the government and its representatives based on merit. Once elected, the government and its representatives should be supported by all those in parliament.
At the same time, the political parties should carry out their civic responsibility to ensure that the government remains on track. They would be able to advocate their solutions without facing the dilemma that the NDP government in Ontario or elsewhere is facing. Once political parties are unable to constitute the government by law, then there would be nothing to stop them from speaking their minds and assisting and organizing the people to ensure that governments work for the people.
With these two changes in the political process, and others to facilitate such things, the divide between politicians and the people would be ended and everyone would be together dealing with the problems. Such changes would modernize the electoral process and enhance the value of the parliament, government, the elections and the vote itself. With such changes, the quality of the governments would improve and the participation of the people would increase.
Should it be said that the politicians would never legislate themselves out of existence, then all the people who do not like those politicians have an incentive to constitute a force to bring about such changes. They could organize the selection of candidates on the constituency basis and ensure that their candidates win the election and that those who do not agree with such changes are defeated.
In other words, those people who are discontented with the politicians have to transform themselves into politicians for change, politicians for democratic renewal. This would bring into the arena those who are not corrupted by power or are not power-hungry in the negative sense. It would also be a first step towards modernizing the political process, eliminating those aspects that have become an obstruction to the democratic functioning of the society. The changes would enhance the very essence and meaning of democracy. The coming elections next year could very well be an arena of struggle between those who want to keep the archaic system going, which assists them to remain in power, and those who want democratic renewal.
* * *
Originally published in Discussion Weekly, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 30, 1992
Taken from Discussion, Democratic Renewal, No. 1, 2016