These MPs invited us into their communities and often their homes, and were generous with their time and reflections about serving at the frontlines of Canada’s democracy. We found the MPs, like many Canadians, were deeply concerned about the state of politics. These former parliamentarians expressed embarrassment over what transpired in the Commons, saying that little constructive work takes place there. Notably, these comments were consistent across all parties in the House.
Many MPs blamed their collective behaviour in question period for Canadians’ growing sense of political disaffection. “Question period has become the greatest embarrassment and one of the reasons politicians are frowned upon,” said one MP.
When asked why this was the case, the MPs pointed their finger in an unexpected direction.
To them, it is often the way political parties manage themselves, their members and their work that drives this dysfunction.
Some of the greatest frustrations these MPs faced during their political careers came from their own parties. MPs repeatedly spoke of how decisions from their leadership were opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional, and often ran counter to the MPs’ desires to practise politics constructively.
It would be easy to dismiss these as words of a few bitter partisans, but that would be inaccurate. Almost without exception, these former parliamentarians spoke with reverence at the opportunity to serve in Parliament, and looked back on their experience as time well spent. In fact, they consistently said the work of Parliament was critical to the way Canadians live together.
Given what these MPs are saying, perhaps we should be asking different questions. Is it true Parliament is broken or dysfunctional? Or is it more accurate to say our political parties are?
After all, if MPs, who arguably benefit tremendously from political party membership, claim the party leadership pushes them away from constructive politics, is it any wonder so many Canadians also turn away?
And turning away they are. According to the Study of Canadian Political Party Members, fewer than two per cent of Canadians belong to parties. When the study was conducted in 2000, the average age of party members was 59. Almost half were senior citizens, only five per cent were under age 30.
Taken together with the stories and advice of these MPs, these statistics suggest it may be time to re-examine how political parties function and discuss how to revitalize them.
We seem to be in a vicious circle. Political parties need citizen participation to thrive, but parties turn people off politics. Disengaged citizens do not want to join parties, so parties are not renewed. So how do we break it?
A first step is to define the problem. The next step is to openly discuss how Canadians want political parties to work and how they can better serve citizens.
There should be at least three components to this discussion.
First, how can parties reorient spending to encourage a more balanced focus across their responsibilities? Political parties serve at least four critical functions: engaging citizens in politics, selecting candidates for office, aggregating policy perspectives and contesting elections.
Today, most funds are directed toward elections at the expense of engaging citizens or developing policy ideas. Party financing should be structured to encourage volunteers and facilitate ways for the voices of these volunteers to be heard.
Second, how are political candidates chosen? One of the most surprising revelations from the exit interviews was how negatively the MPs — all of whom were their party’s nominees — recalled their nominations. One MP referred to it as “the worst political experience of my life.”
There was little consistency in the nomination process. The confusing rules and their irregular application made it difficult to understand the terms on which the contests were fought. Perhaps this is because this process is not transparent. The inner workings were described as subject to manipulation by riding associations, the party’s national leadership and local groups.
Third, how do political parties encourage more citizen engagement between elections, particularly in policy development? The Study of Canadian Political Party Members revealed that fewer than half of party members engage in ongoing party activity. Six in 10 respondents said they spent less than one hour on party activity per month.
One way to address this is to establish political party policy foundations. These organizations, common in Europe, provide mechanisms for party supporters and experts to participate in developing policies that address a country’s longer-term challenges.
Political parties have the potential to touch Canadians in most communities across the country. More should be done to ensure they play a part in reinvigorating the connection between citizens and government.
Political parties are important. They frame the way most Canadians understand politics, and they serve critical functions in our democracy. Furthermore, their operating costs are heavily subsidized by Canadians, and roughly half of their election expenses are reimbursed from the public purse.
This public financing recognizes parties’ important role. But citizens are not engaging with political parties.
And if parliamentarians are frustrated by their own parties, perhaps parties are not meeting their obligations to Canadian democracy.
If what the MPs told us is true and our political parties do play a role in the dysfunction of Canadian politics, then it follows they also have a role to play in helping to overcome it.
And we, as citizens, have a responsibility to kick-start that conversation.
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
No comments:
Post a Comment