The following is an excerpt from Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government selected and provided by author Mark D. Jarvis. In the book, Jarvis and co-authors Peter Aucoin and Lori Turnbull postulate that “the lack of a shared basic understanding of the ‘unwritten rules’ of the Canadian constitution has undermined the functioning of responsible government.” The authors argue that without an agreement on the meaning and requirements of the unwritten conventions, prime ministers “have effectively been allowed to control the functioning of Parliament, have distorted the relationship between the executive and Canada’s eminent democratic body and have disrupted the ability of the people’s elected representatives in the House of Commons to hold the government to account.”
Drawing on recent history, ongoing controversies and comparative experiences, the authors discuss how the situation has evolved over time and make a number of specific proposals to address what they view as an erosion of democracy.
As important as the free press and mass media, a vigilant citizenry, and well-organized interest groups are to a modern democracy, there is no substitute for a well-performing legislature. Even with our written constitution and the power of courts to strike down legislation and executive action as unconstitutional, including infringing on the rights prescribed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the courts can only react when citizens or governments bring cases before it. It is only the legislature that has the constitutional authority to constrain, check, and control the government on a continuous basis. That is why tyrants are so quick to shut down the legislative branch of government, with its official opposition to the government, whenever they can.
And as critical as legislatures are to democratic government, it does not automatically follow, even in developed parliamentary democracies such as Canada’s, that parliaments at work are necessarily edifying or inspiring spectacles. No one in Canada seems impressed by the House of Commons at work—in Question Period, in Commons’ debates, or in Commons’ committees. Indeed, the House is subject to much public disdain (see, for example, Wherry 2011a; Samara 2011).
There are several reasons why the House performs its critical functions so poorly, but partisan politics in the House is not one of them. Partisanship is to robust democratic politics what competition is to an open economic marketplace. Partisanship flows from the fundamental democratic right to have one’s own political views, to organize politically with others of similar views, and, most important, to stand in opposition to others, whether these others are in power or not, and in the majority or not. This is why the opposition to the government in the British parliamentary system is called the “Loyal Opposition.” In opposing the government, it is not committing sedition, treason, or subversion against the state. On the contrary, it is performing a crucial democratic function. The opposition is recognized as legitimate in its criticism of the government.
Partisanship inherently entails criticism of other parties and their members. And criticism is usually, if not always, negative. It is invariably personal, at least when one is criticizing another person’s views, positions, actions, and/or conduct. Emotions are involved when views are strongly held and strong words are used. Further, it is not the opposition’s responsibility to help the government achieve its partisan policy objectives. Partisans disagree not only on methods but also on objectives. Occasionally, when partisans agree on a policy objective, but differ on how best to achieve the objective, there can be an effort on all sides to reach a compromise that will enable the government to pursue its policy objective. On most matters, however, policy objectives are themselves in dispute, or the objectives and the methods are too interconnected to be separated, and the opposition will oppose them, as it should. It is offering the public another option.
As we argued in the first chapter, any efforts to improve democracy by eliminating partisanship are doomed to failure. The entire parliamentary process is predicated on partisan politics, which sees institutionalized adversarialism as the best means of securing democracy. Partisanship is an essential dynamic of public accountability in our democratic system.
However, it should be noted that partisanship does not require the mindless squabbling, nasty name calling, mean-spirited personal attacks, deliberate punching below the belt, and blatant misrepresentation of what others have said or done that has come to mark the common perception of Parliament at work in Canada, and that is ultimately discrediting the institution. Demonstrating one’s rudeness, incivility, absence of manners, narcissism, and, invariably, lack of sense of humour has nothing to do with partisanship. Question Period and other House business, as currently enacted, are derided as time wasted by MPs and any citizens or media watching or listening, with good reason.
What is much more damaging to democracy occurs when one or more parties and their leaders deliberately, as a matter of partisan strategy and tactics, seek to discredit the parliamentary process in order either to stop citizens and the media paying attention or to impede parliamentary scrutiny. When strategies or tactics are used to this end, it is almost always the prime minister and government at fault. The government is the party that benefits when the principal public forum of the opposition is in disarray, dismissed as dysfunctional or merely a venue of “partisan” games or “bickering,” and/or ignored by citizens. From this partisan vantage point, the ideal is to have the House and its committees meet as infrequently as possible, accomplish as little as possible, and, ultimately, to have Parliament itself lose credibility.
The late Peter Aucoin was Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Public Administration, Dalhousie University. Mark D. Jarvis is a doctoral candidate in the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria. Lori Turnbull is Associate Professor Political Science. Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government is now available from Emond Montgomery Publications. For more information or to order the book, click here.