Political Tribalism is the idea of belonging to a particular political "tribe" (in Canada, that's often expressed as a party) to the point of being utterly unwilling to consider ideas from outside of the dictates of whatever power structure exists within that tribe.
Federally, the long standing feud between Martin and Chretien supporters in the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) was perhaps our first introduction to this rigid mindset. Anyone not in "your tribe" was automatically the rival to be defeated at all costs. Once Harper formed the current day Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), he took things several steps further.
Under Harper, not only did the CPC become a very closed bubble, it was abundantly clear that the CPC was unwilling to engage in discourse with other parties. If you didn't agree with the CPC, you needed to shut down or removed entirely from the picture. Personal attacks replaced policy centred discourse in the House of Commons. Attack ads and character assassination became standard fare for defeating an opponent. In short, our politics became warfare between tribes, instead of a competition of "who has the better ideas for the country".
Today, we see it unfolding yet again in both Ontario and Alberta. In Ontario, Doug Ford is quickly falling into line with Harper's model of doing things - autocratic, mean-spirited, and utterly unwilling to consider anyone else's point of view. In Alberta, we have Jason Kenney running about making statements like the NDP being "an accidental government", or that the "NDP just have really bad ideas" (of course, Kenney has been very unwilling to tell us what he would do as Premier, just that it "wouldn't be what the NDP has done".
This post isn't about a critique of the various positions of the political parties. I'm basically at the point now where I no longer believe that any party is going to be able to effectively work to better Canada. It's simply not going to happen. The concept of "we're right, and all the other guys are wrong" has become too central a tenet of partisan politics.
Fixing this is not simple. Even shifting to a Proportional Representation model would be barely a bandaid on a gaping wound in my opinion. (and I have been a proponent of that particular model for a long time - I'd still support it today) We need to be even more radical in addressing political tribalism. In this regard, I take a page from Alberta's civic politics, where councillors are specifically non-partisan (yes, it's clear that some are from a particular political affiliation, but the working approach is collaborative rather than adversarial. So, how do we make things change?
Federally, the long standing feud between Martin and Chretien supporters in the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) was perhaps our first introduction to this rigid mindset. Anyone not in "your tribe" was automatically the rival to be defeated at all costs. Once Harper formed the current day Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), he took things several steps further.
Under Harper, not only did the CPC become a very closed bubble, it was abundantly clear that the CPC was unwilling to engage in discourse with other parties. If you didn't agree with the CPC, you needed to shut down or removed entirely from the picture. Personal attacks replaced policy centred discourse in the House of Commons. Attack ads and character assassination became standard fare for defeating an opponent. In short, our politics became warfare between tribes, instead of a competition of "who has the better ideas for the country".
Today, we see it unfolding yet again in both Ontario and Alberta. In Ontario, Doug Ford is quickly falling into line with Harper's model of doing things - autocratic, mean-spirited, and utterly unwilling to consider anyone else's point of view. In Alberta, we have Jason Kenney running about making statements like the NDP being "an accidental government", or that the "NDP just have really bad ideas" (of course, Kenney has been very unwilling to tell us what he would do as Premier, just that it "wouldn't be what the NDP has done".
This post isn't about a critique of the various positions of the political parties. I'm basically at the point now where I no longer believe that any party is going to be able to effectively work to better Canada. It's simply not going to happen. The concept of "we're right, and all the other guys are wrong" has become too central a tenet of partisan politics.
Fixing this is not simple. Even shifting to a Proportional Representation model would be barely a bandaid on a gaping wound in my opinion. (and I have been a proponent of that particular model for a long time - I'd still support it today) We need to be even more radical in addressing political tribalism. In this regard, I take a page from Alberta's civic politics, where councillors are specifically non-partisan (yes, it's clear that some are from a particular political affiliation, but the working approach is collaborative rather than adversarial. So, how do we make things change?
A Bold Proposal
This is, metaphorically, putting a stick of dynamite under the current system, so please bear with me.
First, let's put the entire concept of political parties aside. If people want to form organizations to advocate for a particular political philosophy, that's fine. Being affiliated with one of those organizations should not be a problem - nor should it be allowed to dominate how someone works as a legislator.
To accomplish the first goal of dismantling the apparatus of party politics, I propose the following:
Let's treat being a legislator in a manner similar to how we deal with jury selection. Using a randomized process, a pool of names is selected from the electoral rolls in each riding. Each person on the list is then notified that they are a candidate to represent the riding in the next election. People who are for one reason or another unable to do so, will be permitted to step aside. This continues until there are 10-15 candidates who agree to be on the ballot.
This means that each election cycle, chances are you have 10-15 candidates who are new. The idea of a "political career" disappears. No one person is likely to appear more than once or twice in their lifetime. The second point here is that we shift from "governing as a career choice" (what we really have today) to "governing as a civic duty". In other words, each person has a responsibility to participate in the governance of the country - not merely as a voter, but potentially as a legislator as well.
How Would This Affect The Structure of Government?
The first, and obvious point, is that it will create all sorts of chaos. Who will lead the government? Who sits in cabinet?, etc. Today, voters have relatively little say in who leads the government - it's basically chosen by the party anyhow. So, having the newly elected parliament select the PM and cabinet posts by some kind of vote (perhaps similar to the selection of Speaker today) seems perfectly reasonable.
What about opposition? Frankly, that needs to shift and flux from issue to issue. All members who sit in the house should have the right to challenge the legislation from the "front bench" (the PM and cabinet). Having MPs acting as paid cheerleaders for the government in order to get legislation passed has long done a disservice to the concept of democracy in Canada. It should require actual work for the government to get legislation through. (Not the kind of tit-for-tat crap we see in the US Congress, either) Instead, we need robust debate and discussion of issues.
One big issue is that of long term, complex matters of governance. How do we enable a new batch of legislators every few years to provide reasonable continuity, as well as the needed knowledge to pick up from where their predecessors left off? I see this as needing multiple lines of change to make it work:
1) Four year election cycles might be too short. If most new MPs take at least the first year to come up to speed, let's look at 6 year election cycles.
2) To facilitate hand-off, each MP's term is 7 years in duration, with the last year spent acting as a mentor to their replacement. A much lower profile role, but one where the outgoing MP continues to be actively engaged, and providing guidance to their replacement.
3) The current bureaucracy which assists MPs with everything from learning parliamentary procedure to drafting legislation needs to be made much more robust. An MP should not have to be an expert in law to draft meaningful and constitutionally valid legislation. They should be able to draw on a body of expertise knowledgeable in both writing law as well as creating policy that is reasonable.
How do we manage the structure of government - especially the bureaucracy? Our politicians today have no special knowledge in this regard. Often, these decisions are made in a seemingly arbitrary manner anyhow. Again, this needs to be managed reasonably between the politicians (especially the front bench ministers), and the bureaucracy. Major changes, such as merging departments or forming new ones, should become matters voted on in the House of Commons.
Conclusion
This is a proposal - an idea. As with any such structure, it can be undermined eventually. It will doubtless have times where it becomes completely addled by the combination of personalities elected (although at 318+ seats, it seems fairly likely that most parliaments would be able to achieve reasonable consensus.
Could tribalism emerge in this structure? Probably. We should remember that it has taken 150 years of Canada's existence for us to reach a place where tribalism became a problem rather than a somewhat useful feature. I'm arguing that whatever problems this would create, they are apt to be much less problematic than the current environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment