“The
question you want to ask yourself is: is Canada a democracy? Is the democracy in
Canada working?” says Dr. Hedy Fry, Liberal MP for Vancouver Centre. “I think
right now the robocall challenges the first aspect of a democracy; the free and
fair right for citizens to vote without interference.”
Canada
oversees the democratic elections of over 40 different countries to ensure that
they are fair, yet the recent robocall scandal has pulled into question the
validity of our election results. There have been reports of voters of the May 2011
federal election being purposely misled with false information, resulting in
them being unable to vote. If the claims of the scandal are true, it could mean
that Harper’s majority government is a hoax, and built upon a fraudulent voting
system. Even more alarming is that our democratic system isn’t working
properly, and the people in power may be taking advantage of its malfunction.
EFFECTS
OF THE SCANDAL
While
it is still uncertain who is ultimately responsible for the robocall scandal,
it is apparent that Canadians aren’t taking this matter lightly. There has been
uproar across the country since the story broke, with political activist groups
like FairVote.ca and Lead Now demanding a public inquiry into the scandal.
“I
think first we have to find out what happened. All of the indicators point to
the Conservatives as being the architect or mastermind behind all of this,”
says Libby Davies, NDP MP for Vancouver East. “It throws into the integrity of
the election process. That is why it is so serious. It could have very serious
consequences. It could mean that the election results in a number of ridings
are null and void. This is to be determined, but that is what we are
potentially looking at.”
As
of Mar. 2, Election Canada’s spokesperson John Enright confirmed that they have
received over 30,000 messages by way of phone, emails, and letters from the
Canadian public after political parties suggested there had been a theme of
potential electoral fraud in their ridings. There are nine ridings under
question in B.C. alone.
Davies,
too, suspected electoral fraud in her riding of Vancouver East after last
year’s federal election.
“We
certainty got lots of complaints,” she says, “and this is why we forwarded it
onto Elections Canada. We don’t have the resources to do our own investigation.
I do know that on Election Day and a few days after, people were phoning us,
saying that they were very upset because they received calls sending them to
the wrong poll and giving misleading information. I had no idea that it was
also happening in so many other places.”
Because
this is unprecedented in Canada, it’s unclear what will happen if the
perpetrators are caught.
“Presumably
there will be fines, there might be criminal charges resulting in imprisonment,
but it’s not clear,” says Tim Schouls, a political science professor at
Capilano University. “It is not clear of the nature of what was done. If there
was electoral fraud and a deliberate attempt to mislead and compromise the
ability of people to vote, that constitutes a criminal act, but what the
sentence would be would be determined by judges when these individual go to
court.”
“The
question here is, are the people who conducted the calls instructed by those
higher up in the chain of command,” he continues. “The higher you go, the more
serious the charge, and potentially the more devastating the sentence will be.”
Fry
thinks that the public needs more education on the foundations of a democracy.
“What
we have to do is educate the public. Most people don’t know anything about a
democracy; they just think it is a place where you get to vote. It is important
[that we], and especially the media, be on guard, against the infringement on
democracy.”
So
far, the no political party has taken responsibility. Stephen Harper has denied
that the Conservative Party has anything to do with the calls, blaming the
charges on a smear campaign against his party by the other political parties.
The
robocalls, however, are related to a bigger issue. Canada’s electoral system
potentially has a lot of problems; maybe it’s time Canadians took a look at
their other options.
THE
CURRENT STATE OF CANADIAN VOTING
Since
confederation, Canada has used the first-past-the-post voting system, which was
adopted from British parliament. This electoral system has a winner-takes-all
effect, and there is no requirement for the winner to gain the majority of
votes to control the majority of the power. Wayne Smith, executive director of
FairVote.ca, says that this is a huge detriment to out country’s politics.
“We
have a voting system where there is only one winner, and lots of losers,” says
Smith. “Winning is everything and it encourages the kind of vicious, cut-throat
politics that we’ve seen in election campaigns. There is a lot of day-to-day
ordinary nastiness – that is borderline illegal – that people take for granted
as part of our politics.”
“If
they can keep voters from voting for somebody else, it is just as good as
getting a vote for themselves,” he adds. “This is built right into our system.
For each party, there are the seats that they take for granted, [saying] ‘Yeah
we’re going to win that, so we don’t have to pay any attention to it.’ And then
there are the ones where they’re going to lose, so they don’t have to pay any
attention to those ridings. All of the elections are decided by a small number
of voters, usually less than 20 per cent, so our elections are decided by a few
swing voters in a few swing ridings, and all of the parties’ efforts are
devoted to identifying and moving those voters.”
This
strategy often results in political parties using negative advertising to shine
a spotlight on the weaknesses of their opposition, and slandering party
leaders.
“Under
a winner-takes-all system, it’s just as productive to discourage other people’s
supporters from voting as it is to encourage people to vote for you,” Smith
explains. “That is becoming more and more of a feature of our politics.”
Although
Britain has its own political problems, their first-past-the-post system isn’t
under as much scrutiny as the Canadian one, which seems to be affected by the
dirty-style of politics in the United States.
“This
particular issue is about an American style of dirty politics that’s now come
to Canada. Deliberately misrepresenting information is not permissible, it’s
not legal, and it’s a matter of getting to the bottom of it,” says Davies.
Schouls
agrees: “The kind of smear campaigns that you see emerging in Canada and
character assassination is something that we have taken, as some degree, from
the Americans. It has been proven through scientific studies that this type of
smear politics works, but I think that any informed voter quickly sees through
what is going on and finds it edifying. “
BEHIND
THE TIMES
Canada
is one of the only larger countries to still use the first-past-the-post
system, along with India and Britain. Most developed countries use a form of
proportional representation, in which a party gains seats based on the
proportion of the overall votes they received.
“Most
industrial democracies changed the way they vote between 50 and 100 years ago,
and we’re left behind. Canada is actually, contrary to the way we think of
ourselves, one of the world’s oldest democracies, and some of our democratic
institutions are a little creaky with age,” says Smith. FairVote.ca endorses a
proportional voting system, and wants to educate Canadians on the voting
options available.
“One
of the reasons that we want to promote proportional voting systems is because
they promote diversity and promote cooperation within the system. Every party
gets the number of seats in proportion to the amount of votes they got, and it
isn’t common for any one party to get the majority of the seats. This means
that they have to cooperate, they have to share power, and they have to get
along. They don’t have an incentive to go right back to the polls in an attempt
to gain a majority.”
Davies
also backs the idea of adopting a proportional representation system into
Canada.
“Proportional
representation, overall, will make our way of voting stronger and much more
representative,” she says. “It’s a very healthy thing. I think it would
encourage people to be involved more and feel like their vote really counts.”
Although
proportional representation systems work in other democracies, Canadians don’t
seem interested. B.C., P.E.I. and Ontario have all held referendums on
electoral reform, letting citizens decide if they wanted to replace the
first-past-the-post system with proportional representation, or combine the two
systems, as has been done in other democracies, like New Zealand. The
referendum was rejected in every case.
“There
are a lot of citizens who are concerned that a proportional representation
system wouldn’t necessarily serve Canada well,” explains Schouls. “For example,
what a proportional representation system would do is almost always deliver
minority governments, and some say that makes it very difficult for governments
to advance their agenda. If they’re constantly hostage to the positions of, or
to the desires of, minority parties that they have to appease, they can’t act
decisively in moving their agenda forward.”
“Sometimes,
people are hesitant,” Schouls continues, “saying ‘I don’t know, our
single-plurality system isn’t great but the alternative isn’t great either,’
and that is why some have suggested that we look at a mixed member system, like
Germany or New Zealand. But even that, in the cases of Prince Edward Island and
Ontario, where it was offered to the citizens in a referendum, they refused
it.”
There
has been speculation that the referendums were rejected because Canadians
weren’t sufficiently educated about the different electoral systems.
“It
has been argued that if we used a proportional representational system of voting,
we’d have a more democratic outcome,” says Schouls. “The temptation to
interfere in the voting process might be just as great in either model. The
motivation might be just as tempting because a small shift in the popular vote
for one party or another could result in a significant increase or decrease in
seats captured.”
THE
SENATE PROBLEM
Although
electoral reform is one option, Canada’s system suffers from more than just a
fault electoral process. There is also concern with the Senate, a very powerful
body within the Canadian Government.
In
our current political system, it is relatively easy for a party to gain the
majority of seats in the House of Commons, making it easier to proceed with
their political agenda. Since Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister, he has
made effective changes ensuring that his political agenda will meet as little
opposition as possible. For a law to be passed in Canada, the bill has to be
approved by two bodies: the House of Commons and the Senate. What Harper has
done is slowly gain the majority of the power in the Senate.
The
House of Commons is made up of 308 seats, all occupied by the elected members
of each riding, and are fixed upon the federal elections. Currently, the
Conservative party holds 166 of the seats. The Senate is the other half of
Canadian parliament, and the Governor General appoints Senators upon
recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Senators
can hold seats until the age of 75, at which time they are forced to retire.
When there is a vacancy in a Senate seat, the Prime Minister will make
recommendations to the Governor General as to who should fill the vacancy.
“He
will endorse and appoint members of the Conservative party, and those
individuals then understand that they are supposed to vote in ways that is in
endorsement of the Conservative legislation,” Schouls explains. “So Harper has
gradually, over the course of the time he’s been Prime Minister, has been
changing the composition of the Senate.”
Of
the 105 seats available in the Senate, 59 are currently held by Conservative
Senators. “They have a double majority now, in both houses, so when legislation
goes through the House of Commons, Harper can be relatively assured that it
will pass without incident in the Senate as well,” says Schouls.
DEMOCRACY
OR DICTATORSHIP
With
these raised concerns, it is natural to wonder if Canada has a democracy.
“There
are six fundamental pillars of any democracy, and if the government fails on
one, it is not a true democracy,” says Fry.
The
six pillars are: the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a free press within
the media, a free and civil society, and a parliament that is free of
government interference.
“You have to ask yourself if our democracy, at this moment, is abiding by the rule of law,” says Fry.
While
currently the Canadian system may enable a benign dictatorship, Schouls
believes that Canada has the resources to not fall victim to it.
“When
we use the term benign, it means that the individual in question is not a
source of oppression and such,” he explains. “What we have in the Canadian case
is a hierarchal structured system of power in which the government allows those
at the top to utilize that power with very few constraints. They can utilize
that power to good effect or to ill effect or perhaps to no effect … When we
have a majority government, as we do now, it more or less renders the House of
Commons powerless, in that the Prime Minister, in use of party discipline, can
command that support of the majority of the members … and can essentially do
what he sees fit.”
In
situations like these, Canadians can benefit from opposition parties and media
outlets, holding the government responsible.
“What
I do think we have in Canada is a fairly rigorous opposition in form of the NDP
and the Liberals,” says Schouls. “We have a vigorous media, and we have the
opportunity as a civil society to express our discontent in all kinds of ways.”
ADOPTING
A NEW SYSTEM
As
a result of the robocalls, people are demanding inquiries into the scandal
across the nation. On Mar. 3, Lead Now, an independent advocacy group, held a
rally in downtown Vancouver calling for a public inquiry. On Mar. 5, there was
a similar one in Ottawa, with over 200 people marching to Parliament Hill,
demanding action.
What
the action will be from the government is uncertain. Although there is
substantial evidence to say that the first-past-the-post system is outdated and
not suitable for Canada, there is no evidence to believe that switching to a
proportional representation government will eliminate electoral fraud.
Before
any action is taken in regards to reforming the voting system is considered
seriously, both Davies and Fry agree that there are some questions that need to
be answered, and some research that needs to be done into possible other
systems.
Fry
believes that we should not be hasty in adopting another nation’s system
because what works for another country might not work in Canada.
“Canada
is a different nation. We should look at other countries and their practices,
and we should investigate them,” she says. “We should openly, as a civil
society, speak about them and decide what is best for us.”
“I
don’t believe that there is any one system that we can say is pure,” she adds.
“Look at Italy with a proportional representation system, and how corrupt it
was there.”
Conservative
MPs failed to respond to the Courier’s interview requests as of press time.
//Leah Schitel, writer
//Graphics by Britta Bachus
//Cover by JJ Brewis
//Leah Schitel, writer
//Graphics by Britta Bachus
//Cover by JJ Brewis
|
