Calgary SW Politics Revisited

It's been quite a week for politics in Calgary SW. First, Stephen Harper wins a convincing first ballot victory in the Alliance leadership race. Next, Alliance member Ezra Levant says he isn't going to give up his nomination so Harper can run for office in this riding. The very next day he gives it up. Now Jim Prentice, the Progressive Conservative candidate says he won't run against Mr. Harper. A Liberal spokesperson has said they will follow tradition and not run a candidate against Harper, so as to have the Leader of the Opposition in the house as soon as possible. Nobody, including the NDP party knows if the NDP is going to run a candidate or not, and nobody cares. I'm appalled by the whole situation.

Lets begin at the beginning, with Mr. Harper's victory. He was in the first wave of Reform Party members that made it into Parliament with Mr. Manning, then leader, but left over disagreements about the direction the party should take. He's been President of the National Citizens Coalition since then, and aside from some poorly received statements about a firewall around Alberta, has behaved suitably.

The man he succeeded is Stockwell Day, a bumbler of the first order. A Day victory would have destroyed the Alliance party. I've written two columns about him, 1, 2, and that's enough. It's time for some respectability in the Alliance leadership. At least there is a chance for that now.

The average Canadian didn't get any say in Mr. Harper becoming leader of the Alliance party and hence, the Leader of the Official Opposition. They could have, I suppose, by spending the nominal fee to join, but only about 124,000 Canadians have done so. They do have a say in whether or not he becomes a Member of Parliament, though. Or they should.

If Mr. Harper runs un-opposed, what is the point of the by-election? Even though he was likely to win, we'll never know. Maybe my neighbours would have decided that the Tories have wandered in the political wilderness long enough and elected Jim Prentice. We'll never know. A vote is meaningless unless there is someone else, a credible someone else, on the ballot.

A mere 55,000 Canadians elected Mr. Harper to the position he holds. Through "tradition" my neighbours and I end up with a man representing us in the House of Commons without us being given a chance to express our disapproval. By-elections are traditionally seen as a way to vote against the government, but it looks like we won't have that option. We won't get a chance to express our opinion of Mr. Harper until Prime Minister Chretien deigns to call another election.

The idea that elected officials periodically face the voters, and respect the results of the vote is crucial to the functioning of a democracy. Giving someone a free ride is repugnant. Mr. Harper should face credible opposition in his bid for a seat in the House and the electorate ought to be given a chance to trump the self serving members of a political party. Without someone else on the ballot, or a "none of the above" option, a "vote" is a cruel sham.

An election is also a chance for voters to express their opinion of the various parties. Technically it's an opinion of the candidates themselves, but we're told most people vote on a party basis. Granted, this isn't as effective a tool as it could be since we are not allowed the option of ranking the candidates. None the less, the election results let everyone know where the voters for each riding think each party belongs.

The whole situation is yet another example of the need for electoral reform in Canada. The objectives are simple. Each voter should have roughly the same say in electing a representative at a particular level. These representatives should present themselves for re-election at regular established intervals. All levels of government should be on the same schedule, so the voter gets one stop shopping, so to speak. The electoral system should select representatives that are representative of the people who elected them, that is, if a party gets a certain percentage of the popular vote at a federal level, they ought to hold about that many seats in the federal body. Should a position become available through death or resignation, representatives should not be able to quit their post to serve at another level, and a by-election should happen according to a standard procedure and timetable. It ought to be unecessary to add that someon should only be able to run for one postion at once. Government powers should be distributed so that no one person has overwhelming control, as the Prime Minister does now. A government that has to work together to get anything done is more liable to consult the voters to make sure they are on the right side of an issue.

Of course, the devil is in the details, but that's for another column. Here's a link to Fair Vote Canada to get you started.