I have added a new site to My Blog List - Alex's Blog by Alex Himmelfarb, former Clerk of the Privy Council and always erudite observer of the world of politics and public administration.
Alex joins the short but eminent selection of blogs featured on Total Quality Politics. This includes Politics by Toronto Start senior reporter Susan Delacourt, the Contrarian by Cape Breton's Parker Donham, A BCer in Toronto by Jeff Jedras (social media pioneer and Chair of Deborah Coyne's recent bid for the Liberal Leadership), and It's the Economy, Stupid by New Brunswick's own David Campbell.
Aside from fine and thoughtful writing, each of these blogs provide a lively and fresh perspective on the issues of the day.
Enjoy!
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Monday 8 April 2013
It ain't broke
The 2000 presidential election in the United States, with its voting contortions and its controversial outcome, prompted many Canadians to express relief that, here, at least we know who the winner is after the voting ends.
Even critics of our system for electing members of Parliament - often called 'first-past-the-post' because the candidate with the most votes in a riding wins the election, with or without a majority - admit that the system's ability to deliver clear outcomes is one of its strengths.
However, critics tend to neglect or dismiss the other strengths of the first-past-the-post system. Further, they make the error of blaming this process for a host of political ills, from falling voter turnout to Canada's lagging record on the proportion of women and visible minorities in the House of Commons.
The recent report from the Law Commission of Canada, "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada," follows in this vein, making its case for using a mix of first-past-the-post and proportional representation to select MPs.
While "Voting Counts" may be good stimulus for a debate on all of this, it overstates both the desire for reform and the consensus for change. Many Canadians are concerned about the state of our democracy, but electoral reform is not the priority that the report's authors (and advocates for proportional representation, generally) believe it to be.
Even if electoral reform were to be among the top five issues of concern to Canadians, more pressing priorities would be the candidate-nomination process, controlling the influence of money on the electoral process and deciding the proper role for third-party or non-partisan intervenors.
The first-past-the-post system provides effective governments. Canadians support a range of parties, but we vote with the expectation that governments will act in accordance with the national interest. Some view the frequency of majority governments that emerge through this process as its chief failing, but majority governments have been as socially progressive as minority governments, and tend to govern better and more effectively.
We may be frustrated with the dominance of a majority government, but we like even less the horse-trading and political manipulations of minority governments. The first-past-the-post system of selecting MPs also has the advantage of encouraging political parties to be broadly based and ideologically moderate, so that they can obtain enough support to form a national government.
Given the geographic, linguistic and cultural diversity of the country, the ability of a political party to accommodate this diversity becomes one of the tests it must meet in order to form a government. As much as the first-past-the-post system allows for majority governments to be the rule rather than the exception, it is important to recognize that this system also allows for regional or ideological voices to emerge and be represented in our national legislature.
The barrier for regional parties to enter Parliament may be low, but the barrier is appropriately high for those who wish to translate a regional or ideological base into a national government. The recent merger of the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance into the Conservative Party is evidence of the political dead end that a regional or ideological party meets under the current system.
Another strength of the first-past-the-post system is that it provides clear local representation. On average, there is one MP for every 100,000 citizens (or 60,000 voters), and the constituency boundaries are drawn up so there are, with few exceptions, an equal number of voters in each riding in a province (federal boundaries are determined on a provincial basis).
The link between the MP and his or her riding is very clear and, combined with party identification, provides a higher level of accountability. Although there is a popular misconception that MPs are powerless within our political system, the strong local connection created by the first-past-the-post system supports the rights of individual MPs against majority views in both the House of Commons and within the party caucus.
The procedural rules of Parliament recognize this and, as recent events attest, party leaders interfere with the local nomination process at their peril. Even with a working majority, party leaders are usually careful not to alienate individual members of their caucus.
Ironically, one of the failings that is attributed to the first-past-the-post process, specifically the inability of our system to elect a reasonable proportion of women to office, is not the result of that process and will not be solved by the electoral reform recommended by the law commission.
Our political parties are more to blame for our lack of progress in this area. Factors other than the electoral process are also at the heart of reduced voter turnout.
The first-past-the-post system is not perfect, but it does very well at promoting the essential attributes of a democratic system. It provides stable and effective government, as well as local representation, consensus-building, broadly based parties and accountability.
Chris Baker, president of the public-opinion firm Continuum Research, was a special assistant in Jean Chrétien's Prime Minister's Office from 1996-1997.
This article was originally published in the May 20, 2004 edition of The Globe and Mail
Even critics of our system for electing members of Parliament - often called 'first-past-the-post' because the candidate with the most votes in a riding wins the election, with or without a majority - admit that the system's ability to deliver clear outcomes is one of its strengths.
However, critics tend to neglect or dismiss the other strengths of the first-past-the-post system. Further, they make the error of blaming this process for a host of political ills, from falling voter turnout to Canada's lagging record on the proportion of women and visible minorities in the House of Commons.
The recent report from the Law Commission of Canada, "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada," follows in this vein, making its case for using a mix of first-past-the-post and proportional representation to select MPs.
While "Voting Counts" may be good stimulus for a debate on all of this, it overstates both the desire for reform and the consensus for change. Many Canadians are concerned about the state of our democracy, but electoral reform is not the priority that the report's authors (and advocates for proportional representation, generally) believe it to be.
Even if electoral reform were to be among the top five issues of concern to Canadians, more pressing priorities would be the candidate-nomination process, controlling the influence of money on the electoral process and deciding the proper role for third-party or non-partisan intervenors.
The first-past-the-post system provides effective governments. Canadians support a range of parties, but we vote with the expectation that governments will act in accordance with the national interest. Some view the frequency of majority governments that emerge through this process as its chief failing, but majority governments have been as socially progressive as minority governments, and tend to govern better and more effectively.
We may be frustrated with the dominance of a majority government, but we like even less the horse-trading and political manipulations of minority governments. The first-past-the-post system of selecting MPs also has the advantage of encouraging political parties to be broadly based and ideologically moderate, so that they can obtain enough support to form a national government.
Given the geographic, linguistic and cultural diversity of the country, the ability of a political party to accommodate this diversity becomes one of the tests it must meet in order to form a government. As much as the first-past-the-post system allows for majority governments to be the rule rather than the exception, it is important to recognize that this system also allows for regional or ideological voices to emerge and be represented in our national legislature.
The barrier for regional parties to enter Parliament may be low, but the barrier is appropriately high for those who wish to translate a regional or ideological base into a national government. The recent merger of the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance into the Conservative Party is evidence of the political dead end that a regional or ideological party meets under the current system.
Another strength of the first-past-the-post system is that it provides clear local representation. On average, there is one MP for every 100,000 citizens (or 60,000 voters), and the constituency boundaries are drawn up so there are, with few exceptions, an equal number of voters in each riding in a province (federal boundaries are determined on a provincial basis).
The link between the MP and his or her riding is very clear and, combined with party identification, provides a higher level of accountability. Although there is a popular misconception that MPs are powerless within our political system, the strong local connection created by the first-past-the-post system supports the rights of individual MPs against majority views in both the House of Commons and within the party caucus.
The procedural rules of Parliament recognize this and, as recent events attest, party leaders interfere with the local nomination process at their peril. Even with a working majority, party leaders are usually careful not to alienate individual members of their caucus.
Ironically, one of the failings that is attributed to the first-past-the-post process, specifically the inability of our system to elect a reasonable proportion of women to office, is not the result of that process and will not be solved by the electoral reform recommended by the law commission.
Our political parties are more to blame for our lack of progress in this area. Factors other than the electoral process are also at the heart of reduced voter turnout.
The first-past-the-post system is not perfect, but it does very well at promoting the essential attributes of a democratic system. It provides stable and effective government, as well as local representation, consensus-building, broadly based parties and accountability.
- 30 -
Chris Baker, president of the public-opinion firm Continuum Research, was a special assistant in Jean Chrétien's Prime Minister's Office from 1996-1997.
This article was originally published in the May 20, 2004 edition of The Globe and Mail
Wednesday 3 April 2013
Budget Illustrates Alward Government Divisions
Reflecting on the budget speech, with its grim tidings of increased taxes, deficits and service reductions, it is evident that we have a provincial government at war with itself.
In Opposition, David Alward’s Progressive Conservatives spent four years railing against government spending and promised a more prudent, stringent management of public funds. Now, in their third budget as government, the same party is showing itself unable to combat growing deficits, stimulate a stagnant economy or maintain essential services. In a speech that could not rally enthusiasm from the government benches, Finance Minister Higgs admitted that the Progressive Conservatives had no intention, or political will, to seize control of New Brunswick’s faltering fiscal situation.
“It’s not our fault,” he repeated as he went through the litany of tax increases, budget cuts and half-hearted measures listed in the Budget Speech. “Maybe next year,” he speculated as he described the declining revenues and flat economic projections.
When he was first sworn into office, there was hope that Blaine Higgs, who had earned a strong reputation as an effective fiscal manager in the private sector, would bring a new sense of direction and purpose as Finance Minister. He was considered an astute choice as CFO for an organization with 45,000 employees and an $8 billion budget.
However, it has became more and more evident that Mr. Higgs is the only cabinet minister concerned about New Brunswick’s fiscal situation. In other jurisdictions facing similar situations, such as Saskatchewan in the early 1990s or the federal government in the mid-1990s, being the lone deficit fighter in cabinet did not prevent those governments from succeeding where the New Brunswick Government is currently failing.
The difference is that the Finance Minister in those jurisdictions had the unequivocal support of their First Ministers. Without the leadership of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Premier Roy Romanow, Finance Ministers Paul Martin and Janice MacKinnon would not have been able to balance their respective budgets and set a positive course for economic growth. Both ministers relied on their leaders to give focus to the budget deliberations and to restrain the spending tendencies of their colleagues.
Unfortunately for New Brunswick, it seems our finance minister cannot count on the support of his premier in the unenviable task of bringing provincial finances under control. Further, it is apparent that Premier Alward will not – or cannot – secure the support of cabinet for the measures that need to be taken.
Rather than the unity needed to set clear goals and take decisive action, we have a cabinet that is divided against itself. This leaves Mr.Higgs in the unfortunate position of tinkering around the edges of government spending, trying to squeeze out marginal savings from process design, while the rest of cabinet sits on its hands. Since they refuse to lead, the cabinet is looking for others to take responsibility for their own inaction, such as the poor example set by Health Minister Ted Flemming with regard to the province’s doctors. Divisions within cabinet are leading to divisions within our society.
New Brunswickers, like Canadians in general, elect governments to govern. Without confidence in their own decisions, governments lose the ability to give confidence to citizens that they are on the right path or have the ability to deliver on the decisions they make.
Whether you are an entrepreneur, a union leader or someone who delivers (or relies on) provincial government services as part of your daily life, this lack of confidence is contagious.
Given the precarious state of our finances, it is also dangerous. It is like careening down a highway without anyone willing to steer the car. There is no good ending to that story.
Premier Louis J. Robichaud was known for saying, “Half-measures plus half-measures equals nothing.” In my opinion, this recent budget shows that we have a half-hearted government of half-measures in New Brunswick today.
- 30 -
Chris Baker is president of Continuum Research, a Fredericton-based public opinion and market research firm specializing in public policy, public affairs and strategic planning. He was deputy minister for, policy and priorities in the Liberal government of New Brunswick from 2006 to 2008.
This article was originally published in the April 3, 2013 Edition of the Telegraph-Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)