The Worst Way to Select Candidates?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, contested nominations are the worst way to select local candidates – with the exception of all the other ways that have been tried. As recent events show us, fiercely contested local races can become national news. And, despite the fact that these are local stories, they can have consequences that reach to the highest levels in our political parties.

With all this controversy, you would think that there would be a better way to select local candidates. But, like democracy in general, there is no ideal process that is immune from controversy or dispute.

Since the 1960s, Canadians have wanted our political parties to conduct their internal affairs in a more open and democratic manner. Leaders, for example, are chosen by a broad base of party members rather than selected by the parliamentary caucus or brokered by regional or sectoral bosses. Riding executives are elected locally rather than selected by elected officials or party managers. In keeping with this overall trend, the responsibility to select local candidates has, for the most part, been assigned to local party members.

Of all the attributes that local party members look for in a good candidate, the ability to win is one that most people agree on. In fact, the perceived ability to win a riding is likely the most important factor when riding members consider their choice.

We have a political culture that is adversarial in nature and where competition is thought to yield the best choice. In order to win a contested nomination, a candidate and their team has to do many of the same tasks that must be done in order to win an election. They need to recruit supporters, mobilize volunteers, raise funds and get out the vote on the day it really matters.

While competition may have its virtues, there is a school of political thinking that believes in winning at all costs. Rather than encouraging the clash of ideas or a vigorous promotion of a candidate or their views, there is an emphasis on deal-making, dirty tricks and subversion of the democratic process. This activity is not confined to nomination contests; it is a cancer that plagues every part of our political culture.

To protect the electoral process from this negativity, considerable resources, as well as legislative and legal force, is brought to bear. Even with this effort, our electoral process is not immune from manipulation or underhanded tactics.

The resources and capacity of our political parties to bring the same kind of rigour to the nomination process, especially at the local level, pale in comparison to that of Elections Canada. If we struggle to ensure that our elections are free and fair, this disparity in resources demonstrates how difficult the task is for local riding associations.

As much as we praise the ideal of local democracy, and resent the intrusion of party officials in what should be a local democratic process, there are times when the intervention of senior party officials is not only desirable, but mandatory.

When he was Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1974, Robert Stanfield was faced with a major challenge when Len Jones, a former Mayor, was elected as the local PC candidate in Moncton, New Brunswick. Despite his merits as a candidate, Jones was a high-profile opponent of bilingualism, a key plank in the PC Platform, and Stanfield refused to sign his nomination papers.

If Stanfield were to have yielded to the local democratic choice, he would have had a candidate that was virulently opposed to a major policy of his Party. With Jones as an official PC candidate, this would have significantly reduced the electoral chances of PC candidates in the many ridings where support for bilingualism was strong.

Stanfield based his response on his responsibility for the national party and the policy process that supported official bilingualism. For Stanfield, these factors trumped the democratic choice of local PC Party members. (This was not to be the last word on this story. Angered with Stanfield’s decision, Jones ran as an independent candidate and won with 46 percent of the vote.)

When it first appeared on the political scene, the Reform Party of Canada was noted for its emphasis on local party democracy, the independence of MPs, and the rejection of central party authority. As Leader, Preston Manning was faced with a similar dilemma as Stanfield. Some riding associations were likely to select candidates that would have severely hurt the credibility of his Party and he let it be known that he would refuse to sign their nomination papers. Again, the overall interest of the Party was seen to supersede the democratic choice of the riding.

A review of Canadian electoral history at the federal and provincial level finds that it is rare for a party leader not to be challenged by this dilemma.

The key is to find the right balance between the interests of the overall party and the ability of local party members to select their own candidates.

Most political parties have instituted some form of vetting process that is meant to screen candidates on the basis of a variety of criteria. This process can be very detailed and intrusive but it is meant to prepare the candidate for the high level of public scrutiny they will receive as well as to gird the party for any controversy that might be associated with a particular candidate for nomination.

To be fair, the vetting process must treat all candidates equally. You cannot exclude one nomination candidate because of a poor credit history, for example, while allowing another an exemption for the same presumed failing. Likewise, the vetting process cannot become the means for central party officials to manipulate the selection process. Inclusion, rather than exclusion, should be the rule.

The nomination races themselves must be run in a fair and neutral manner. Party officials have an obligation to ensure that nomination votes are held according to verifiable democratic standards. They need to safeguard themselves from accusations of preference and unfair practice.

This can be a challenge when one candidate is well-known in a riding and has a long record of involvement with the riding association and another is a relative newcomer. If all politics is local, all local politics is social.

Even if Canadians view bitter and hotly contested local races with some distaste, the alternatives would be considered even less palatable. No one would accept the democratic bona fides of a political party that appoints all their candidates, or sets the bar for running in a preferential or arbitrary manner. Indeed, local nomination races are the worst way to select candidates – with the exception of all the others.

- 30 -

 

This article was originally published in the April 7, 2014 edition of The Hill Times.