Conservative Party Pushes to Protect Incumbent Candidates

Representative democracy in Canada was recently dealt another blow as political parties move to protect incumbent MPs from facing contested constituency nominations. The Hill Times is reporting on the details of recent decisions of the Conservative and Liberals parties to make nomination challenges against incumbents more difficult to mount.

The Conservative barrier is significantly more onerous in that an incumbent candidate will only face a nomination challenge if 2/3 of the local constituency membership petition the National Party office for a nomination. The reality is any challenger has to win two times to be successful. First they need a large majority of the current members to ask for a nomination and, if 2/3 of them agree, the challenger then has to win the actual nomination.

Perhaps in reality if a constituency membership is upset enough with their candidate that 2/3 ask for a nomination process, they may see the writing on the wall and demur. Or, given the combative nature of politics, it may cause the opposite reaction and result in some serious dirty and deceitful politics to rule the day.

This is a disaster for the 90%+ of Canadians who do not belong to political parties and only actively engage in the political process at election time. There is already a strong resistance amongst Canadians to join political parties so the candidate selection game is already rigged in favour of those of us how belong to political parties. With this change in the Conservative Party nomination process, the nomination process becomes an even greater rigged auction. The "reserve price" on a nomination is set so high that nobody will or can pay it. So the status quo prevails.

The other natural consequence of such a rigged system of candidate selection is we protect mediocrity as well as merit. The top down central office control of the incumbents and the nomination apparatus puts even more power in the party executive, the leader and his inner circle of advisers.

The Liberals have used a carrot to protect incumbents. To stay "protected" in their nomination, they have to prove to the party headquarters that they have until June to recruit 400 members in their riding associations and at least 40 "Victory Fund" donors who donate $10 or more on a monthly basis, $5 to the party headquarters, and the other $5 to the riding association.

The Liberals need money and manpower to run an election and that is clearly what is behind this move to jack up the performance requirements of incumbent candidates. It will be interesting to see what happens to those candidates who fail to achieve this goal. Will they see the party headquarters actively recruit alternate candidates to run against them? I doubt it will be the norm but I full expect it will happen. Liberal candidates who go through the motions at election time who still believe they represent "the natural governing party of Canada" will be in for a rude awakening.

The NDP have no such protections for incuments. Each and every candidate must earn the support of the local constituency membership for each and every election...just as it ought to be.

What this all means for the Canadian voter is not good. We have not attracted our best and brightest into public life for quite some time. The Conservative move will embed the incumbents and demoralize potential challengers. Politicians for life will the net result in the Conservative ranks, especially in Alberta seats where the Conservatives have a vice grip like hold on seats.

What are we to do about this? Well there is not much we can do. Political parties are private "clubs" that are ostensibly controlled by the membership. Without a party membership ordinary citizens are shut out of this vital part of the overall political process. We only get to chose between party candidates at election time.

With only 40% of eligible voters bothering to participate by at least showing up to vote this move by the Conservative Party only serves to further disillusion citizens and alienate them from their so-called democracy.

There is a crying need for serious governing and democratic reform in all orders of government in all corners of Canada.

Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky

Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky
You think I write long blog pieces...Meet Clay Shirky. This is a must read for anyone thinking and worrign about the changing media reality.

The Blackberry Boys Obey the Rules but Are the Rules Realistic?

I remember when Ed Stelmach was one of the “Deep Six” group of rookie backbencher MLAs. They sat in the nose-bleed seats way in the back. They wore pink bow ties and were prepared to be contrarian. When truth had to be brought to power they delivered it - often very effectively.

Now we have a new group "The Digital Six." These are, the thoroughly modern and contrarian MLAs I like to call The Blackberry-Boys. These are the MLAs who were caught “Twittering” in Question Period and have been reprimanded by the Speaker. There are rules and they must be to be honoured, and the Speaker is clear he will enforce them. The Blackberry Boys have said they will abide – as they should. Otherwise the Speaker will come down hard and they will find themselves out on their ears and become the “New Kids in the Hall.”

The Speaker is right to enforce the rules. It is his duty. The question is should there be such rules against using PDAs in the Legislature Chamber? Is that reasonable in the age of digital democracy? I don’t think so. Tradition versus technology is the dynamic at play here. The rules banning Blackberry communications in QP or even the debates and in Committee is something that must be changed.

We have had Hansard for eons and we have had live television coverage of QP for decades. There is even on-line streaming of QP these days so you can catch it on your computer from anywhere in the world that has a browser. That streaming service has been extended to include audio and video coverage of Committee meetings. These are all progressive steps to be applauded and were achieved under the leadership of the current Speaker. Hard to peg him as a Luddite. He is not.

That said, what is the principle and purpose of banning digital communications from the Legislature to the outside world by MLAs? It is because of the decorum of Question Period? Well the tradition of parliamentary government in QP is hardly one where manners prevail. It is a tradition rife with heckling, hectoring, haranguing and humiliation. That history hardly justifies a ban. School teachers have been loathed to bring classes to see QP because of the bad example these “adults” provided to students in their QP shenanigans.

Is it because MLAs are perceived as not paying proper attention while Twittering or text messaging? With the extensive staging and scripting of QP and the focus on Ministers what is there that demands such attentiveness? Is anyone actually sitting in the Legislature in QP not already knowing what the focus and outcome of this farce in three acts is going to be about? Who needs to pay that kind of attention with you already know the plot, the characters and their lines and the outcome of the “drama”?

I think the Backbenchers time is better spent reaching out to the world and putting the proceedings in some meaningful context for the rabble also known as citizens. This better use of their time instead of feigning interest in the proceedings for the benefit of the TV cameras.

The larger question is what is the actual value of Question Period anymore anyway? As I said, it is highly scripted political theatre designed to garner positive or negative headlines. It is not a way to get accountable, open and transparent governance. The Opposition’s questions are rarely answered to the point where the running gag saying “It is called Question Period not Answer Period” is more true than funny.

Then we have the self-serving puffball questions that are read by government Backbenchers to government Ministers, many of whom merely answer by reading directly from prepared scripts. The purpose of this tactic is to get the government version of the “story “on the public record and hopefully garner some positive media coverage. But it is not credible to the media so it does not work. Puffballs have the side benefit of giving Backbenchers some Hansard excerpts to send to constituents to show they are on the job. This is all so passé and such a futile exercise in message control. It merely adds to citizen cynicism about the overall effectiveness of our representative democracy.

There is a new web-based world out there and it is changing everything, including democracy and governing. I am thinking the Alberta Speaker’s enforcement of the old-world rules is doing the focus on this issue of digital real-time communications and the ubiquitous connectivity capacity of politicians a real favour. He is precipitating a public discussion about what accountable, open, responsible and effective representative government can actually be in the digital age.

There is so much positive potential in all of this in so many ways and at so many levels. Technology induced change is not new but it is always disruptive so let the debate begin.

Ken Chapman on CBC Wildrose (Mar. 11. 2009)

Texting and Twittering Tempest in a teapot. MLAs have Blackberrys - OMG - what will they think of next?

T Mobile Advert 2009 Full Version HQ

Sure this is an advert from England...but suspend your cynicism for a few minutes and get into the spirit of the thing....BUT FIRST DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO UNTIL YOU SEE THE EARLIER POST.