Taking on the Straw Men

A number of years ago, while campaigning with a municipal candidate in Winnipeg, we knocked on the door of an elderly lady who showed little interest in our desire to solicit her support. When we tried to convince her of the importance of voting, she shook her head sadly and told us, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the government always wins."

Struck by the inescapable logic of this statement, we thanked her for her patience and went on to the next doorstep.

Over the last few weeks, a number of articles have appeared in View from the West decrying the state of Canadian democracy and urging a program of reform. While I would not defend the notion that our current democratic system is perfect, I certainly reject the views put forward by Gordon Gibson, Preston Manning and Ted Morton that our political system is a shameful failure.

One common feature of these articles is that they rely on the same kind of circular logic employed by the elderly non-voter. While some of the "examples" put forward by these authors to illustrate their cases are merely straw men -- put up so that they can be easily struck down -- some of these arguments represent a point of view that, upon further consideration, are repugnant to the majority of Canadians.

In his article, Fixing Canadian Democracy, Gibson repeats a myth that has some currency in right-wing circles that votes in Atlantic Canada are "bought" by political parties seeking power. We are all familiar with the notion that politicians try to buy our support, but this argument is based on a premise that voters in Atlantic Canada are actually for sale. According to Gibson and his colleagues at the Fraser Institute, the attachment of Atlantic voters to democratic virtues is significantly less than, let's say, voters in Alberta or Manitoba.

Further, Gibson states that our immigration policy is "designed not for the advantage of Canada, but instead chiefly with Vancouver's -- and especially Toronto's -- ethnic voting patterns in mind." I would challenge Gibson to come up with some substantive proof that supports this curious assertion. He presumes that our current immigration policy is not based on a point-system to select those best-suited for our country, but exists for the sole purpose of supporting the Liberal vote. Any student of Western Canadian history knows that this argument is an old one, and was used to criticize the immigration policies of Clifford Sifton at the turn of the last century. If, indeed, the chief purpose of our immigration policy is to support the Liberal vote, why didn't the Progressive Conservatives dismantle it over the nine years they were in power? Or, if immigrant communities are so attached to the Liberal Party, why are there a significant number of these individuals from them, like Grumant Grewal from Surrey, sitting as Members of Parliament in the Canadian Alliance caucus? Again, this premise is based on a view that Canadians with an immigrant background do not have minds of their own when it comes to voting. All of these views have more than a tinge of xenophobia to them and would delight the most fervent conspiracy theorist.

In his article Gay Marriage and the decline of democracy in Canada, Professor Morton argues that both the "truth" and "Canadian democracy" have been ill-treated by our political and legal systems. He takes the recent Ontario court decision on the validity of same-sex marriage as the prime example. As with Gibson, he sets up a series of "straw men" to be knocked down, devoting considerable column-inches to putting words into the mouths of his opponents and then showing the error of their so-called beliefs.

Morton has created a fiction, called "the Court Party", which is the villain in this piece (and in other articles and books that he has written). If we are to believe Morton, the Court Party (with its allies and "apologists") has devoted itself to taking power away from Parliament and the people generally and giving power to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The chief instrument of abuse is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been used, in Morton's view, to force unpopular laws onto Parliament and the country.

Aside from the fact that judicial review is an important and time-honoured principle of Canadian constitutional law, the Charter is possibly the most popular and significant law that exists in Canada today. Rather than seeing the Charter as a document that recognizes the rights of all Canadians, Morton sees it as privileging a few and, for this and possibly other reasons, he wants to reduce interpretation of it to the narrowest possible extent.

If this is what he believes, so be it. But where is the need to create a mysterious, malevolent cabal like the "Court Party" if not to justify a somewhat shaky belief? It's good fiction, but not a credible analysis of the interaction between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government.

The most unfortunate thing about Manning's article, Shattering the faith-politics taboo, is that it provides further evidence that he has turned down the role of elder statesman, preferring to indulge in the partisanship that he stridently objects to elsewhere. Manning states that an "unwritten rule" forbids MPs from raising matters of faith and religion in debate, and argues that this is incongruous because a large majority of Canadians adhere to a religious faith or belief. Well, if such a rule existed (it doesn't), who would obey it? If it were to be broken, who would enforce it? Certainly not those who hold religious beliefs and care about the beliefs they hold. And, if we can assume that MPs are much like their constituents, wouldn't a majority of Parliamentarians hold a religious or spiritual belief too?

In fact, many MPs, regardless of party stripe, hold strong religious beliefs and use them as a source of strength and insight. NDP Parliamentary Leader and United Church minister Bill Blaikie is a familiar example for many Manitobans. It is obvious from his record that his faith is an important part of what motivates him as a politician. He is also a student of parliamentary procedure and knows the rules and conventions of the House of Commons, written and otherwise.

Canadians appreciate that their elected politicians may have strong personal beliefs. They even understand that these beliefs may create difficulties for MPs on matters of conscience and, by and large, would not expect their MP to vote for (or against) a measure that conflicts with this belief. What Canadians do not accept -- and perhaps this is the point that Mr. Manning was trying to make -- is the idea of politicians forcing their religious beliefs on others. Personal testimony is fine, even praised, but proselytizing is not.

At the end of all this is the fact that our democratic system, as flawed as it may be, does provide for free and fair elections, stable governments and the orderly transfer of power. While we may not be enamoured with the choices offered to us, we have a choice -- even the choice to stand for election or create new political choices.

I find it an irony that while all three writers are ardent proponents of the market system, the only place where they appear disenchanted with the "market approach" is when it comes to voting and the outcomes of elections. It's true: no matter who you vote for, the government always wins. Isn't that the objective of elections, selecting governments?

Gibson, Manning and Morton all adopt the position that, since a majority of Canadians disagree with their views, the Canadian system is broken and needs to be fixed. But they talk about fixing our democracy in the same way as fixing a horse race. They want to create a process that will ensure an outcome they agree with, rather than ensuring that the process is seen as objective, fair and delivers a result that we all have a hand in making.

Can we do better? Certainly. In this, I share Churchill's jocular but insightful view that our political system is the worst there is, if not for all the rest.

-30 -

This article was originally published in the July 20, 2003 of the Winnipeg Free Press.