The urgent need for PR
By Joyce Hall
Realizing that PR is already on the NDP platform, I’m concentrating here on providing updated pro-PR points in the light of recent developments in our democracy. I’ll discuss two reasons PR is more urgent than ever and then the link between PR and climate change which is forefront in everyone’s mind these days as it should be.
Need for PR more urgent because
1) Some parties at both federal and provincial levels of government are being taken over by populists. One of the spectres that fear-mongers raise about PR is that small extremist parties would arise. But even worse than a small extremist party in my mind is a big extremist party. This anti-PR argument implies that the First-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system can be used to mute certain voices; That big tents are guarantees of moderation. But if a set of beliefs reaches a certain critical mass that happens to be well funded, it will find a voice. These voices are much more controlled if they are cordoned off and visible in parties that gain one or two seats than if they are absorbed into a big tent where they work to pull policy to the right. And we have proof that extremist voices can be highly successful at annointing one of those voices as leader. So we have in a sense soared past the extremist small party objection in Canada. A related myth is that that PR will facilitate the creation of separatist parties. This is a case of bias causing a serious case of political blindness. We have a separatist party and under FPTP it became her Majesty’s official opposition. As we know, under FPTP a geographic concentration of a certain type of voter can win seats for a party wildly out of proportion to the actual numbers of voters. Thus in the 2008 election, the Greens won 948,000 votes and won 0 seats and the BQ with 1.3m votes won 49 seats. Take a look. Which of these is the dangerous separatist party?
Getting back to the ease of annointing leaders, the Liberals and Conservatives have evolved over the past 4 decades a culture of strong leaders whose authority is unquestioned and as a corollary, disempowered MPs. With the leadership of the CPC up for grabs, we don’t know in what direction that party may be pulled. Dan Leger, journalist for the Halifax Chronicle Herald, tells us that some polls suggest a third of [Conservative party] supporters identify with the populists: pro-oil and pro-Trump, they despise so-called ‘elites’ and dismiss climate change as a hoax. And that this constituency threatens to overtake the Conservative party. This party could well elect a populist leader that pleases the one third while hiding in the folds of the so-called big tent. Then under FPTP it could secure a majority government with 37 to 40% of the vote and hold us all mute hostage for four years.
In addition to the uncertainty caused by the rise of populist politics, there’s a second reason the need for PR is more urgent than ever.
- Anti-democratic processes taking over the legislative process: The profoundly undemocratic practice of Omnibus bills undermines the proper review of legislation by the entire body of elected representatives: It consists of presenting the House with a bloated bill, and often exacerbating the problem by allocating a short time line for debate. The definition of an omnibus bill on the Canadian Parliamentary website is a bill which makes changes in disparate statutes but has a unifying principle. The omnibus bill which is concerning me these days is Ontario Bill 132 which makes changes to 14 separate statutes. Its name belies a “unifying principle” so value-laden and vague as to raise your eyebrows, I am sure, as it did mine. It’s called the “Better for people, smarter for business” Act. Better for what people, smarter for which business? Well one of the businesses that it’s definitely better for is the pesticide business. The new act eliminates the use of the current classification system which distinguishes 12 classes of pesticides. In particular, it removes Class 12, the class that includes neonicotonoids. According to the response to Bill 132 by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, proposed revisions to a regulation contained in the Pesticides Act will “have the potential to undermine Ontario’s ability to progressively reduce the use, including unnecessary use, of neonicotinoid-treated seeds and to address the well-documented and world-wide crisis of crashing insect populations and loss of pollinator species.”
Along with omnibus bills with a short timeline for debate, we have seen over the past two decades an abandonment of our tradition of fair and reasonable practice that has been relied upon in the past: that of respecting the legislation that a previous government has passed and put in place using taxpayer dollars. The Harper government provided many examples including notably, the almost total repeal of the Fisheries Act, an act whose origins predate Confederation. In the first month or two of the Trudeau government there were announcements one after another of promised repeals of legislation the Harper government had passed. It’s not that we didn’t want to see those repeals. They wouldn’t have needed to happen, of course, if a false majority government had not gained absolute power under a FPTP election. In any case, in the electoral reform movement we have a name for this “passed then cancelled” pattern: it’s called policy lurch. What’s amazing about policy lurch is that Canadians have gradually come to believe somehow that it’s totally normal and business as usual for one government to undo the legislation-of-the-previous one. We have become utterly anaesthetized to the unfathomable levels of waste of our hard earned dollars going up in flames. As if the idea of our society as being on a path towards increasing justice, fairness, and rational governance were but a quaint metaphor. As if fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers is inevitable collateral damage in a democracy. If a person behaved this way, for example by burning down one house to build another, over and over again, we’d diagnose that behavior as pathological and in need of immediate and urgent treatment!
As an aside, lobbyists benefit from these dynamics. FPTP combined with the acceptance of policy lurch as natural in a democracy creates a field day for lobbyists. Because when control of government changes from one party to another, everything is up for grabs.
3) The third reason that we need PR is the urgency for action on climate change: probably each of us has our own story about when they heard the alarm bell. The first time I actually heard it loud and clear was the announcement of the IPCC report in October 2018 giving a 12-year deadline! We know what it’s like to get a deadline in our own lives. It gets us moving. But for the planet to get a deadline! What does it even mean?
In an article entitled, “What does 12 years to act on climate change really mean,” Scott Denning, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, compares the urgent need to adapt to climate change, to past infrastructure shifts like indoor plumbing, rural electrification, the automobile and paved roads, and telecommunications.
Denning points out that those changes cost tens of trillions of dollars, adjusted for inflation, were hugely disruptive, took a decade or more, completely changed the industrial, economic and social landscape and created bursts of growth, productivity and jobs. “Solving [today’s problem],” he writes, “requires a new global energy infrastructure, which is arguably easier and less expensive than those past infrastructure shifts.”
Comparing those infrastructure shifts of the past with the one needed today, there is one major difference. The existence of entrenched obstacles resisting change. Powerful forces are invested in status quo and represented by political forces that play off of fear and insecurity, even increasing that insecurity through retrograde social policy. A case in point is Alberta, whose economy is based on fossil fuels. In the recent federal election Alberta elected 100% of their representatives from the party most resistant to change. (This was due to the distortions of FPTP. In fact, over half of the votes of Albertans elected no one. Many of that half we can assume understand that the Alberta economy needs to diversify.) In any case, the current federal government is now faced with the need to make concessions in their climate change agenda in the light of a threat of western separation.
So in the era Scott Denning reminds us of, when huge infrastructure change took place, we might wonder if some political parties were resisting change, advocating to keep outhouses, candles and the horse and buggy; lobby groups consisting of horse ranchers and candle makers. No. And what was at stake? Not the safety of future generations. Change could be slowed but there were no dire consequences hanging fire.
We all know the picture is different today. Resistance is strong, well funded and may well take charge of a big tent party. All the elements of a perfect storm are lined up and ready to go. The tendency of Conservative governments towards non-evidence based right-wing policies, the willingness and ability of a new government to undo the work of the former government fast and effectively without consultation, and the anti-democratic fptp electoral system gives a minority of voters the ability to pull the trigger and catapult such a party to power put us in serious jeopardy of not being able to solve a problem that needs addressing fast.
How would PR help? PR reduces resistance to change by simply giving power to the majority of voters. PR governments are coalitions therefore consultation among representatives of the majority of voters across party lines becomes non-optional and accountability for uncomfortable transitions is shared. Shifts in power that result from an election reshuffle the players but do not create a whole new game.
Earlier this month in an article in the Hill-Times four policy analysts call for all-party co-operation. “Federally, there is now cross-party support in Parliament for climate accountability measures,” Gage, Abreu, Croome and Marshall write. “Now is the time for all parties in the House of Commons to cooperate on accountability measures to prevent Canada from missing its latest set of carbon reduction targets.” How is that co-operation going to happen? A PR system, tailored to the realities of Canada, can create a civil and co-operative culture. It’s why countries with PR are miles ahead in their climate change agenda.
For years FVC has argued fairness as the main reason for a change to PR. It’s in our name. And it’s democratic, after all, that every citizen’s vote have equal weight. But climate change gives us an even more compelling reason to move to PR. We need highly focused, collaborative problem-solving, with the best minds hammering out the best solutions in an atmosphere of reduced adversarial politics.
FVC is calling for a national Citizens’ Assembly (CA) on electoral reform. This amazing form of citizen-based problem solving, harkening back to the Greek origins of democracy, is becoming a widely-used tool around the world. We used one in Ontario to come up with a proposal for changing the voting system. (It did not result in change because a referendum was required and the government failed to do the necessary education, but the proposal was sound and could have been refined over time.) The Citizens’ Reference Panel on Pharmacare advised the Canadian federal government on a national pharmacare program. A CA was used in Ireland which advised the government on several issues including climate change, same sex marriage and abortion. Iceland’s CA (constitutional council) advised the government on a new constitution. The CA on Social Care was commissioned by the UK Parliament to examine long term funding models for adult social care. Very recently, in November of last year, The German Citizens‘ Assembly on Democracy (Burgerrat) handed over its report with 22 specific recommendations for strengthening the German democracy. The report was prepared by 160 randomly selected citizens on the basis of lectures and discussions with experts.
The German Burgerrat was set up as a result of a perception of “democratic fatigue” and loss of confidence in democracy. Its mandate included developing proposals for strengthening democratic processes. What a worthy enterprise!
Are we suffering from democratic fatigue and lack of confidence in democracy here in Canada? In addition to my work with FVC, I am a member of Just Earth, a small group concerned about climate change led by former NDP MP Lynn McDonald and particularly centered on lobbying. We recently gave a workshop on lobbying MPs and MPPs to young climate activists. We were surprised to discover that they had never even considered going to visit their elected representatives. Politicians they see as the enemy.
If you read more about any of these examples of CAs here and around the world you will find that they can boast many successes on tough issues and provide models of creative approaches enlisting an eager and concerned citizenry.
To promote and educate its members on CAs FVC has held one webinar and is currently planning another. I am encouraging the organization to open out these webinars to a wider audience as a public service. If you would be interested in attending the upcoming one, please see me.
To me the mending and nurturing of our democracy and our planet go together. It’s time to be creative. Does the federal NDP want to call for a CA on electoral reform and climate change? Models exist that we can follow. Let’s do it.