October 2001
The Fundamentals of Democratic Reform: Part I
by Gordon Gibson
The Fraser Institute will hold a conference
in Vancouver on November 22
in a policy area that is receiving increasing
interest in Canada–democratic reform.
The time and place are particularly
appropriate given that the new BC government
is committed to act on some
elements of democratic reform, especially
in relation to the electoral system
and direct democracy. In addition, a
new law is already in place providing for
fixed-term elections (assuming no
defeat on a “confidence” motion in the
meantime). This is landmark legislation
which will be noted and perhaps replicated
in other jurisdictions.
This first of a series of three articles (or
perhaps more, depending upon conference
developments) will outline a
framework for thinking about the whole
issue of democratic reform since the
topic extends well beyond the usual
technical (but important) questions of
electoral, parliamentary, and direct
democracy reforms.
This article will deal with the usefulness of the democratic reform preoccupation in Canada at this time, and describe both the three levels of reform, and where Canadians might focus their attention. Future articles will tackle the role of decentralization and subsidiarity in democratic reform, along with the often overlooked but equally important area of constitutional restraints and requirements placed on governments.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
Why worry about such an esoteric subject as democratic reform? After all, Canada is reasonably free and prosperous. Surely we should concern ourselves with more urgent things, such as health care, or the value of the dollar, or threats to national unity. Well, it turns out that we might be far better off in all of these areas if our democratic system worked better.
Canada could be, in fact should be, the most harmonious and prosperous land in the world. We are not, by a considerable way. Our living standard is much lower than in the US, or in many other, smaller, countries. The public is broadly cynical and apathetic with respect to our political process. We have major regional alienation, of which the Quebec sovereignist movement is the first but certainly not the only example. At the federal level, we have what is effectively a one-party government. This party (and the previous Conservative government in its day) is driven by perverse incentives which make political sense but are in other ways injurious. These include, as examples, the payoff for votes bought in the Atlantic region with economically damaging subsidies, and an immigration policy that ought to be for the advantage of Canada but is instead chiefly designed with Vancouver’s— and especially Toronto’s—ethnic voting patterns in mind.
The state of our democratic debate is such that tough-minded and realistic discussion in some areas is simply not allowed. The most enduring example is the ridiculous idea that health care ought to be provided only by public employees. The most recent example (as expressed by our government) is that it is in some way illegitimate for the United States to want to develop missile protection against rogue states. This latter absurdity has been decisively banished by tragedy, but the former— inefficiently supplied health care—is daily inflicting a less drmatic tragedy of its own kind.
Three levels of democracy
Canadian democracy can be much improved. My own analysis recognizes three “levels” of democracy. The first is one in which the voters get to choose the people who in turn decide who is the all-powerful boss. That person effectively runs the government as they see fit for the next four or so years, more or less as an elected dictatorship.
Is this an over-statement? Hardly. The prime minister unilaterally and with no check appoints the heads of all government departments and all deputy heads, and they do what they are told. He or she appoints all senators, and more importantly, all of the judges of the Supreme Court which say what is legal in this country and adjudicates disputes with the provinces (who have no say in the tribunal).
The prime minister must sign all significant legislation for it to have any chance of passage in the House of Commons. He or she (through agents) manages the business of the House, and allocates time, permission for foreign travel, and even office space.
The prime minister, with no hindrance, appoints the heads of the Bank of Canada, the CBC, the CRTC, the ethics commissioner (who reports to him!), all ambassadors, the head of the national police, the chief of staff of the military, and dozens of other significant jobs. He or she must approve of all tax and expenditure decisions. While in theory Parliament has the power to control some of this, it never does. “Four-year elected dictator” is an accurate description.
This is the first level of democracy, and the most primitive one. There Canada is firmly stuck, the most embarrassing (for true democrats) system in the developed western world.
The second level of democracy again sees the people elect the representatives (as in Canada) but those representatives then go on to make the laws and budgets acting independently of (or at least not fully controlled by) the executive branch. The fullest development of this second level is probably to be found in the United States, which for many Canadians unhappily is all the proof necessary that the system must be unsuitable for us. Canadians should look instead at quieter examples, such as Switzerland, where few people even know the president’s name. (The job is rotated among members of a seven-person council of ministers, itself made up of members of several political parties.)
This “second level” is a reasonable aspiration for Canadians. After all, if my representative, the individual MP, the only person I get to vote for, is not important because the prime minister makes all the decisions, that means that I and my vote are not important either.
The third level of democracy is what we often call direct democracy, in which the voters themselves make the detailed decisions. Without further elaboration here (to be found in a future article) my view is that this third level, while essential, has a quite restricted applicability to our governance needs.
Some reform—indeed major reform—is worth considering; it is a subject to which we will return in future articles.
Gordon Gibson (gordong@fraserinstitute.ca) has an MBA from Harvard and is The Fraser Institute’s Senior Fellow in Canadian Studies. He has served in the Prime Minister’s Office under Pierre Trudeau and as both an MLA and as leader of the BC Liberal Party (1975-79).
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.