Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

The House of Amateurs

Only 20 per cent of Canada's recently elected MPs held previous positions in politics.

Political commentators often note that Canada lacks a professional political class, and several have recently observed that Canada's Parliament is downright "amateur" compared to those in many other countries.

An analysis of the pre-parliamentary jobs held by the recently elected members of Parliament suggests this is the case: Only 20 per cent of MPs held a political job before being elected. Compare this to the United States, where more than 70 per cent of those in Congress worked in politics before, either as elected officials, party advisers, or staffers.

Canadian Parliament is made up of MPs who were previously doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, cooks, and many other things. While some worked as staffers or local or provincial politicians before, most did not. This means that Canada's MPs bring a much wider range of experiences to Parliament than we'd commonly assume.

However, Canada's MPs look much less amateur when we examine cabinet alone: Thirty-seven per cent of cabinet members pursued a career in politics before entering Parliament – slightly less than double the number for MPs as a whole.

While a U.S. comparison does not make sense here, as U.S. cabinets are not appointed from the ranks of elected representatives, looking to the U.K. and Australia suggests that Canada is still more “amateur” than our fellow parliamentary governments. In fact, 48 per cent of those in British Prime Minister David Cameron's cabinet came from careers in politics, and the same percentage holds true for Australia's cabinet.

That said, it is worth reflecting on whether the imbalance in political experience between the backbench and cabinet in Canada is a problem.

On one hand, it’s not surprising that MPs in cabinet require more political experience, considering they are expected to have a greater level of political acuity than other parliamentarians, and that they must manage sensitive files under greater scrutiny than the average backbencher.

On the other hand, the skills acquired in other careers, such as management or communications, might serve an MP equally well in a cabinet position. Expertise in a particular field could be an asset to cabinet ministers dealing with certain portfolios. For example, a former physician could bring important front-line experience to a health portfolio.

That said, there are certainly many cabinet ministers whose political experiences line up well with their portfolios. Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, for instance, served as finance minister when he was in the Ontario Legislature, and Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson used to practise law, and was a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Origin
Source: The Mark 

No comments:

Post a Comment