Bob PlamondonBrigitte Bouvier
If an election is about giving citizens the power to choose a government and a future direction for the country, it looks like this campaign is going to fall short of the mark. Since the polls indicate another minority government is likely, voters can't be sure what the next Parliament will produce. Will the party with the most seats be given a fair crack at governing? Or will some combination of the parties who finish second and below cut a deal to grab power?
Some countries force clear majority rule by removing lower ranked candidates from the ballot until a true electoral plurality vote is achieved. This is also the way Canadian political parties choose their leaders. But since this would not work well in a parliamentary election, and for other reasons, some suggest proportional representation as the cure to our democratic ills. And yet, in a country as diverse as Canada - socially, culturally, economically, linguistically - I cannot think of a better way to undermine accountability while at the same time institutionalizing division and chaos in Parliament.
Meantime, our current system is clearly failing us. In a four-way race a riding can be won with a little more than 25% of the vote. This gets repeated riding-by-riding to the point where popular support in the high 30s can produce a majority government. Ironically, more choice can pervert the democratic will.
Thanks to a profusion of parties we have heard less in this election about vision and policy and more about strategy and tactics. We may spend more time talking about who is in the debates than about the debates themselves.
All this meaningless political chatter confuses and frustrates voters, which may explain why we had the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history in the last election. In America, where there are two parties on the ballot, voter turnout has risen in the past three elections, and in 2008 was the highest since 1968.
In Canada, with fewer of us voting and five parties on the ballot, a majority government can be had with about 25 per cent of the eligible votes. Why would a party bother to make a broad national appeal if it can guarantee a win by building a rock-solid base of support by catering to a small but reliable segment of the population?
Of course the parties that have no chance of winning government like minorities because it gives them disproportionate influence. But minority governments come with their own problems. By necessity they are more focused on day-to-day survival than governing for the long-term best interests of the nation. Minorities are short-lasting, which is why we are having our fourth election in seven years. A minority Parliament also makes a government less accountable to fulfill their election promises since the other parties can block passage of any legislation they deem offensive.
No one likes a minority Parliament more than the Bloc Québécois for the clout it gives them to negotiate for pecuniary and other gains for Quebec. And with so many federalist parties on the ballot, the Bloc won 65% of Quebec seats with only 38% of the votes in the last election.
Whether it's a minority or majority government, with four or five parties in the House of Commons the opposition is divided, conflicted and ineffective. Question Period and committee meetings take on a different tone when the government does not face a concerted and co-ordinated attack.
Although our system is intended to produce an accountable government and an official Opposition, public funding mechanisms encourages a proliferation of political parties. Any party that gets two per cent of the vote gets an annual subsidy courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada. This may be a great way to sustain a think tank or advocacy group, but it's not good for democracy.
I believe we would get a more accountable government, a more effective opposition, a more engaged electorate and a more united country if we had two dominant political parties rather than five. If we narrowed the number of parties and increased the likelihood of a majority government the relevance and influence of the Bloc would be diminished, and they might even disappear.
It is unfortunate that the parties have been unable to rationalize the choice for voters on their own. But I predict a structural transformation of the Canadian political dynamic is likely to happen naturally after this election.
If Stephen Harper wins a majority, a merger of the Liberals and NDP would emerge as a likely necessity to thwart a Tory dynasty. Should Mr. Harper win the most seats but not a majority, a major shake-up of the other parties is just as likely. Having defeated the government in March on a matter of contempt, and having collectively won, say, 60 per cent of the vote, the opposition parties would likely seek to defeat a Tory minority government at the first opportunity. The Governor-General would have little choice but to ask the second-place party to form a government. A coalition by name, co-operation by convenience, or floor-crossing en masse, the Liberal and NDP brain trust would merge into one.
There are few scenarios where I see the structure of our political parties remaining intact after the vote in May. This will be good for Canada as it will not only strengthen our democracy, but also obviate the need for strategic voting and make the choice for voters crystal clear next time out.
Bob Plamondon is the author of Blue Thunder: The Truth about Conservatives from Macdonald to Harper .