Alberta Party- with no party whip?
Friday, 16 July 2010 08:17
At my Big Listen, I floated the idea of the Alberta Party being the first provincial party to operate without a party whip. Every MLA would vote their conscience, all the time, every time, doing their best to determine what their constituents want and need. In this way, MLAs would own every single one of their votes and be held accountable for those votes by their electorate. They would not be able to hide behind the party banner, telling people, "Well...I didn't really support it, but I had no choice... caucus decided."
The response from my Big Listeners to this idea? Excitement, intrigue and interest. "Wow! That would be so different. I would vote for that."
I don't see this is a merely a political strategy to gain media interest or lure an Albertan population that largely checked out politically (60% non-voters). I honestly believe this is the way democracy needs to evolve. It would move us beyond a 'Command and Control' model, where all the real debate and ultimately the message is determined behind closed doors in caucus meetings. It would bring decision-making and debate into the public. It would knit politicians tightly back into their communities by making them all personally accountable. It would develop skills in tolerance for difference of opinion. This would spread out, hopefully, to help erase the current culture of fear in civil servants, organizations dependent on government support, unions and industry who are afraid to speak out against the government for fear of reprisals. Modelling that that sky doesn't fall when we disagree and we can still continue to work together, with respect, despite those differences would be a great legacy for any party. To me, this is akin to the difference between hiding your disagreements from the kids and putting on a fake face of marital bliss vs. being honest about the fact that sometimes Mum and Dad really get on each other's nerves, but they have the skills to work things out. Love is not a perfect union. Neither should we expect a political party to be.
I've been told by people (who are far more knowledgeable than I about political history), that other parties have tried this idea and it has failed. I need to investigate further why it failed, but I can guess at some of the reasons. If your primary objective, your driving motivation, is to be in power, to maintain power or to increase your power...this will not work. You will not be able to control your MLAs or control the voting impact of the party. Your message will, at times, be diluted. You risk confusing your public, who are accustomed to the idea that a party speaks with one voice. The media will jump all over the "division" and will probably accuse the party of being disorganized or unfocused. If MLAs are not comfortable with conflict, disagreement, difference of opinion... it will cause stress within the party. Some will feel betrayed, some will feel resentful, some will just be ticked off. The party leader may feel like they are herding cats.
So, with all this risk and uncertainty-- why do I still maintain that independent voting is vital? Because I think it's what the public wants. If your pressing desire is to serve the public and represent their views, desires, hopes and values... this is the only way you can guarrantee that you will do that. Otherwise, you are not a servant of the people, you are a servant of the party. No matter how great a party is, no matter how well-intentioned, how principled, I would still choose to serve the people over the party any day of the week.
With that in mind, why not just run as an independent? Why do you need a party at all? I think running as an independent is a lonely business; it's hard to be the only one at the dance without a date. We are social beings and ultimately, we all share a deep need to belong. Ideally, a party would create a positive, collaborative, supportive working environment to bring out the best in each member. I know we are stronger together than apart and, when push comes to shove, we can't accomplish very much alone. Working alongside people who trust and respect you enough to make your own decisions, who value your contribution to the whole, but still respect your individuality... this seems to be the best way to go.
If a party could be brave and mature enough to work without a party whip, I think you would see a healthier, more vibrant and relevant brand of democracy. That's my hope for Alberta.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by David Harrigan, July 17, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sue Huff, July 18, 2010
The idea that without a party whip you don't "stand for anything" is worth wrestling with... I think candidates would definitely need to "sign on" for a number of things(existing party policies/guidelines/values/constitution) when choosing to run for a particular party. This contract, if you will, between candidate and party would be an essential component of nominating the right candidates and ensuring a "good fit" rather than just accepting any warm body to create a full slate of candidates.
However, let's assume you are successful in getting a seat in the Leg and there is a bill to vote on... let's use Bill 44 as a good example... where in the party policy does it say anything about how to vote on such a bill? I don't think it does... so at that point, without a party whip, I would suggest it is up to each MLA to decide what their constituents think/want and vote accordingly, in a free and open manner, without fear of party reprisal. It's not up a caucus to decide, behind closed doors, without any public debate or input and without the opportunity to provide strong rationale to the public for their decision. I would suggest this is anti-democratic and, in truth, a big gamble, because what if the party guesses wrong? I think that's exactly what happened in the case of Bill 44- they guessed wrong and many card-carrying PCs left the party after that decision. Without a party whip, the damage of that closed-door caucus decision would be mitigated.
Oh, and saying it's a "free vote" (as Premier Stelmach did with Bill 44) doesn't make it so, when the culture has never supported free votes and there is no mechanism for it. Staying home on the third reading is the best some MLAs could muster. I would suggest that the best way to institutionalize free votes (on issues that do not directly conflict with existing party policy) is eliminating the party whip.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Heather MacKenzie, July 19, 2010
I found it a bit shocking to read David's comment on the post because I hold the opposite opinion. While reading Sue's post I kept thinking...not only would the public be better represented by this system, but we would also have much better candidates running in provincial elections. I know a lot of people - amazing leaders - who have been turned off of running in provincial and federal politics because of the party system. If these folks could vote their conscience then I think they would look at running in the future and we would benefit greatly from that.
While I do not share David's concern that a change such as this would entail more egotistical people running for office, I do have concerns about what happens if a party such as this gains power - whether they were orignally power hungry or not. It seems to me that a party might be very well-intentioned before gaining power and folks might get elected because people do not like the party whip. However, just as we have seen with the issue of electoral reform, as soon a parties actually gain considerable power, they seem to change their minds on a lot of things. How can a principle such as independent voting be upheld if and when a party gains power?
Thanks and bye for now,
Heather MacKenzie
-
- +0
-
-
written by David Harrigan, July 19, 2010
I suspect that a better approach would be more - real- "free votes" and developing a culture that supports this when party policy is silent.
I also think that the reality is that a large number of people vote for the party - not for the person. (Again, not meaning to be too cynical, but how else can the regular re-election of Rob Anders and others be explained?)
This makes it more important that candidates agree to the basic policies of the party.
This movement is about developing a new way of doing things. A culture of free votes, and open discussion (not behind closed caucus doors) can happen if enough people insist on it.
-
- +0
-
-
There has been a lot said re: voting for a party, or voting for a person. Personally, I have always voted for the "person" aspect rather than choosing someone just because they represent a party. And I expect that person to vote for the things that represent the people who elected them. The reason is really quite simple. If the PARTY can not bring forth "rules and regulations" that fit the needs of the PEOPLE, then the party is NOT doing their work very well. A good government will see the need when something drastic needs to be done, and provide the people with the valid and correct information to justify their decision.
As it stands now, these things are being done against the wishes of the people or to the detriment of the Province. I *pray* for some form of re-call legislation, because I am sick and tired of people running for office with promises of "I will do this", and then never DO what they say, with the EXCUSE of "oh, the party won't go along with that". To ME, that makes you, the liar... and a con artist. And for those types of people who are in politics... I will continue to be the most painful thorn in your butt.