Avalon

Fixed election dates is an issue both federally and provincially. In 2006 Mr. Harper brought in legislation to limit the term of a federal government to four years; thereby fixing the date of the next general election to the fall of 2009. An election begins when the Prime Minister asks the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and to authorize the writs of election. Assuming the government has not lost confidence, the timing of the election call resides completely with the Prime Minister and is a considerable advantage for the leading party. By taking advantage of short-term events, opposition weakness, or sudden good news the Prime Minister can sway an election to his or her advantage. As a result governments may be winning elections they otherwise would not and manipulation of election dates for political gain erodes the citizen’s view that elections are important and should be participated in. So fixed election dates are correctly deemed a good thing. Mr. Harper said it himself in 2006, “ … fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage.”

However fixed election dates cannot work. Why? Canada and its provinces use a confidence system of governance. If the government looses the confidence of the House it must resign and an election must be called to restore confidence regardless of any fixed election date scheme. Also the right of a Prime Minister to ask for dissolution of Parliament is constitutionally protected. Any law passed by Parliament fixing election dates cannot interfere with that power. So even with fixed election dates on the books what sanctions can be used to prevent a Prime Minister from calling an election by resigning before the next election date? And this of course is precisely what happened and why we went to the polls a full year before the ‘fixed’ date.

Fixed election dates is a needed reform but is incompatible with our confidence-style of governance. So let us take a hard look at whether Canada and its provinces should move beyond confidence based governance.

Nova Scotia celebrated the 250th anniversary of the first glimmering of democracy in British North America on October 2nd as part of a yearlong celebration called D250. The first meeting of an elected lower house was an important occurrence, the first step towards better governance and better democracy in North America. Every Atlantic Canadian should be proud. While modern day Canada may attempt to co-opt this occurrence as a ‘Canadian’ event, it must be remembered that the reformers who met on Oct 2, 1758 in downtown Halifax were exercising the ancient rights of English peoples in the English Atlantic colonies as a spiritual continuation of the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and as a precursor to the American Revolution.

The honoured event was a step forward in Atlantic Canada’s democratic evolution; some would say a very small step. By law, both voters and candidates had to be white men, at least 21 years old, be members of the Church of England and property owners. By early 1848 the system needed to be updated and Joseph Howe made a name for himself by doing just that; moving us towards a better system of governance. New Brunswick followed in a few months. Another step forward for Atlantic Canadian democracy.

Democracy cannot sleep, it needs to keep growing and adapting to the needs of citizens. As always the elites in power say little change is necessary. In Atlantic Canada our form of government, now older than the theory of Evolution and the light bulb, needs to be updated. Like Mr. Howe and those October 2nd Reformers new advocates from outside the system must come forward.

It’s not who got elected where, it’s not the outcome of various ‘grudge’ matches around the country, or the final seat totals, it’s not even the resulting minority government for Mr. Harper. The most important result is buried in the data from Elections Canada, a footnote really. It is the historically low turnout of 59.1%, the first time ever that less than six out of ten people have voted. And that is based on registered voters, estimates claim an additional 5% to 15% of potential voters are not registered and therefore do not vote. Including this fact places the actual turnout at around 50%, perhaps less!

Why are people not coming out to vote? Disinterest in or cynicism of politics in general? We have always had that. No, the reason is the growing knowledge that our representatives do not really represent us, the voters. Yes they ‘represent’ us in a superficial fashion, they stand for our riding. But they don’t express our political wishes on the issues of the day since the party dictates their votes in the House. So voters are, correctly, stating ‘why should I vote if my representative will not vote for me’.

Shrinking turnout is a bad thing. Less and less involvement in the democratic process de-stabilizes the whole system (for instance Mr. Harper’s claim to government rests on only 5.2 million votes out of 23.4 million potential votes, that’s less than one in four). However low turnout does point to something good; more and more citizens are becoming political sophisticates and can see how they are sidelined politically and this sets the stage for the coming rebirth of our democracy in terms of political and electoral reform.

Welcome to the Atlantica Party blog.

A place for far reaching political debate, analysis and commentary.

We hope you find it interesting.