Max Fawcett’s pitch for the Liberals and NDP to merge, while superficially appealing to progressives, is a plan that may provide short-term gains for those parties but will surely bring long-term pain for all Canadians. .
A false majority government led by Pierre Poilievre is undoubtedly a bleak and terrifying prospect for progressives, one that will highlight the terrible flaws of our absolute majority system. Hard-won gains, from Canada’s climate plan to the fledgling Pharmacare program, could be in jeopardy. The list of policy changes can be long and the consequences brutal.
Perhaps even more concerning is the potential marginalization of our constitutional rights through the reckless use of the notwithstanding clause to push a partisan agenda, as Poilievre has recently threatened. Politicizing human rights issues to present them as red meat to his party’s base before an election means a new low in Canadian politics.
The notwithstanding clause was controversial from the beginning, but it has not aged well. Combined with a first-past-the-post electoral system, it puts us in a terrifying situation.
if the current projection As argued, Fawcett is right about the reckoning – and soul-searching – that awaits the Liberals and NDP in 2025. A landslide Conservative government could finally force a serious conversation within and among the Liberals. and the NDP on Canadian democracy reform. .
But before rushing to entrench a two-party system like the one bedeviling our southern neighbors by embracing a merger between the Liberals and the NDP, it’s worth asking a couple of important questions.
What is the problem we are trying to solve?
What reforms will serve the next generation of voters as governments confront the long-term problems ahead?
The conversation could easily start with what most of us No want.
In recent years there has been an alarming increased partisan polarization, agricultural fury and voter alienation. Voter turnout continues to decline as Canadians opt out of an increasingly contentious political culture.
Prominent Canadians from across the political spectrum recently wrote an open letter expressing grave concern that Canadians are losing their ability to listen and engage in genuine dialogue with those with whom they disagree.
As our ranking in The EconomistThe annual Democracy Index continues its decline, according to analysts. repeatedly warned that Canada’s democratic problems are beginning to reflect the growing dysfunction of winner-take-all politics in the United States.
Needless to say, we do not want to accelerate these dangerous trends.
If we start with the goal of creating a more representative, inclusive and cooperative political system, any proposed “solution” that gives two major parties an even stronger grip on power must be seen as self-evidently counterproductive.
Instead of solving the problems plaguing countries with winner-take-all voting systems (polarization, alienated voters, and discordant political shakeups), moving to a two-party political system will amplify them.
The stakes are high for all Canadians and we are running out of time. We need to find the right solution the first time.
Wicked problems like housing shortages, poor healthcare, and climate change have been decades in the making. The short-sighted nature of winner-take-all politics ensures that progress will remain elusive.
Effective solutions require plans and commitments that extend far beyond the life of any single government. Their implementation often does not produce the immediate and dramatic improvements for which politicians hope to be rewarded at the polls.
Even when a government starts, being first in office means that key programs risk being completely destroyed by the next one. Politicians are incentivized to reduce complex problems to nothing more than partisan wedges with which to beat their opponents.
To be successful in the long term, we need an electoral system that encourages parties to find common ground and work together to create lasting policies.
If the Liberals and NDP really want to avoid getting caught in this same fatal loop over and over again, they should show the courage and conviction to act on the lesson offered to them every time they head toward electoral disaster: Canadians would be better off served. through legitimate improvements that will benefit not only progressives but all voters. There is an obvious solution, but it involves a compromise.
Decades of peer-reviewed research shows that countries with proportional representation have lower income inequality, higher economic growth, better health outcomes, more ambitious climate protection, and more resilient democracies.
In other words, in aspects that profoundly impact the daily lives of ordinary citizens, governments elected through proportional representation obtain better results.
Policies are created in an environment of less toxic partisanship. Although parties or leaders with “extreme” opinions are part of any democracyProportional representation eliminates the risk of any leader with an “extreme” view receiving all power with 39 percent of the vote.
In general, programs and policies negotiated under proportional and multiparty governments are much less likely to be reversed. While changes in policies and priorities occur when governments change, direct rollbacks are rare.
A culture of collaboration, along with a degree of continuity in the parties that form the government, provides a higher level of protection for social and environmental policies and programs.
For example, nine parties in Denmark (including the conservatives) cooperated to pass ambitious climate policies. legislation in 2020. Regardless of which parties form government in the future, Denmark has committed to its citizens, investors and the world that it takes the continued fight against climate change seriously.
We know that proportional representation can be achieved because other countries have done it. Dialogue and commitment to reach a multiparty agreement is the way to most OECD countries achieved public relations.
Unfortunately, since 2017, the Liberals have been unwilling to come to the table.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been stubborn, relentless, and ultimately decisive in his personal opposition to any form or degree of proportionality. As he stated in 2017 when he broke the promise, “it was my choice.”
A false Poilievre majority combined with new leadership in the Liberal Party could finally put a multi-party agreement on electoral reform within reach.
If the 39 liberal deputies who opposed the party line when voted in favor of a National Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform They are an indication, it is a conversation that many liberals are willing to have.
Long before the Liberal Party’s precipitous fall in the polls, its rank-and-file members voted overwhelmingly in favor of a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform at their 2023 national convention. Their vote coincided with the opinion of a strong most of Canadians, across the political spectrum.
Pierre Poilievre’s politicization of human rights issues to parade them like red meat to his base before an election means a new low in Canadian politics, write Anita Nickerson and Gisela Ruckert @FairVoteCanada #EqualVotingPower #cdnpoli
As Fawcett says, the failure of the Liberals and NDP to reach an agreement on electoral reform may be “one of the biggest strategic miscalculations of the last decade.”
Let’s hope that the dire consequences of the upcoming election serve as a catalyst for them to finally do what they should have done years ago: work together to protect our democracy and ensure Canadians get the governments they voted for.
Note: A version of this column appeared in Fair Vote Canada website on April 12, 2024.
Anita Nickerson is the executive director of Fair Vote Canada. She lives in Kitchener, Ontario, with her husband and her daughter.
Gisela Ruckert is a national board member of Fair Vote Canada. She is a grassroots advocate for community resilience in her hometown of Kamloops, BC.