Parties, Politics, and Mike's 3rd heresy of the Month

Most Canadians would acknowledge, I believe, that our politics have reached a low point. (It's ironic I would say that now. On Tuesday I voted in the BC provincial election, and it was the first election in a few that I've bothered to turn out for; I believe we're at a turning point in "politics", and so it's time to re-engage.)

It's my view (as always, open to evolution and refinement) that in postmodern culture, partisanship (like denominationalism) is on it's last legs. The childish bickering we are seeing in Ottawa, so completely removed from the real lives of ordinary Canadians (other than the most avid political junkies), is a harbinger that change is coming. To my mind, though, its a universal law that things get worse before they get better, so I'm not expecting much on the road to reform.

I read with interest Ed Broadbent's essay in the latest issue of Time. While Ed's memory may be a little "selective" in hearkening back to the glory days, he is right. There was a sense of mutual respect and decorum that seems absent in the House of Commons today. And he raises some salient points about the parliamentary system. The language of parliament - government, opposition, majority, minority - has devolved to depths previously unplumbed.

Take the word "opposition", for example. It seems to me that the current requirement of all members of the opposition is to "oppose" every single utterance of the government side. Should the government issue a statement that the sky is blue, it seems to be the duty and responsibility of every member of the opposition to respond with completely unsubstantiated claims as to why the sky is not, in fact, blue, and more so why holding to such a belief proves that the government is completely out of touch with the electorate.

What happened to the 75% of the values and concerns of Canadians that we all agree on?

I also like Ed's use of the word "coalition" - I believe this is where the future lies. To me this not only makes political sense, but as a follower of Jesus I see it as the only viable option.

No party can possibly represent anyone's views on all issues. (Not if they form their own opinions as opposed to adopting the party's, but I'm getting ahead of myself...) Close enough is not good enough. Our current system forces us to prioritize the issues, then vote for the party/candidate who matches up with our views on the issues we have deemed most important. In other words, we hold our noses and cast our ballots.

In last week's election I happened to have voted Liberal. Am I a "Liberal supporter"? No. I think they've done a decent job of getting the BC economy going. I'm not prepared to trust the NDP again, and while the Marijuana Party did run a candidate in our riding, lets just say there was no serious alternatives, and leave it at that.

I also voted "Yes" in the referendum. For the uninitiated , the issue at hand was BC - STV, or "Single Transferable Vote". (I won't take the time now, but check it out here, and even watch a Flash animation to understand how it works.) While I agree this would bound to be awkward and even unwieldy initially, I also feel this is the future; proportional representation that requires coalition building (there's that word again) on important issues.

Now, back to my Jesus follower comment, because that leads to my heresy.

Should believers be politically active? Yes, I think so. Except, I'm now differentiating between politics and partisanship. I'm not willing to compromise my own beliefs and values in order to fit in with a particular party's platform. Give me an issue and I'll give you my position on it.

These thoughts bring me to this notion, which admittedly is more of a variation on an earlier heresy than anything new:

Instead of looking to Jesus to lead us in forming our opinions on issues, and then communicating those opinions to our political representatives,

we, as believers, often

Look to our political leaders to tell us what to think, then attribute those positions to Jesus.

Feedback, please. This one is still half-baked.

Comments

[Mac]

Given the current climate, any heresy is often good heresy.

More later..I want to ruminate.

[issachar]

I'm not sure partisanship is all that dead. Don't get me wrong, I wish it would die, but it seems to be holding on to power just fine. Taking a side for something seems to be the "old" reason for partisanship. Now it seems to me that people are partisan in order to be against something. They're against gay marriage so they vote against anyone who isn't loudly opposed. They're against those right-wing religious fundies, so they vote against any one from Western Canada. They're against US foreign policy so they vote against anyone who doesn't denounce US-style everything.

I heard the same sentiments when some people told me why they didn't like BC-STV. It'll help party X and I don't like party X. Vote to hurt the partisan enemy.

Any ideas on how to kill partisanship in our country? It needs to be done, but I'm fresh out of ideas...

[robert]

half-baked? Hardly.
Pretty well-thought out , I thought. I like the notion of not aligning oneself with a "team". It is a little more work because you have to consider every issue on its own rather than simply confirming which side your team is on. No one has a monopoly on good ideas and as hard as it is sometimes to remain open-minded, the effort to hear other voices leads to a more beneficial result than simply towing the party line. That said, Go Habs.

[wilsonian]

On a simple level (cause I'm all about that), I wonder what would happen if we all took advantage of the system in place. What would happen if we kept informed of topics debated, and called our MPs/ MPPs. What if we called them once a month, to let them know our views? What if 3 or 4 thousand of us did this? What if more did this? Regardless of the political persuasion of our elected rep.

Sometimes I think that debate goes on like it does because those elected folks are just guessing about what we want. What would happen if, after we make them responsible to make decisions, we made them able to make good, representative decisions.

A marked ballot once every four years is not enough.

[JJ]

I agree with your gut-reaction on this one Mike. I was thinking about this too recently. I thought that the amount of power in the hands of the independents was a remarkable thing, but such times are rare. I wonder if any thinking has been done as to how one might battle partisan-ship through some sort of "independent" movement. What would we lose by abolishing parties? In much the same way that we do not allow corporations to monopolize (well, at least in theory). Also half-baked thoughts from me, but I think you're right that times could be changing, and these ideas need to be kicked around.

[Brad]

I don’t understand why people in a democracy don’t bother to vote. The only thing more of a mystery to me is why people who haven’t bothered to vote feel like anyone’s going to give much credence to their opinions on what’s wrong with the system. How can you justify that this is ‘…the first election in a few that I’ve bothered to turn out for…”?

With the amount you pay in taxes up here, I can’t understand why anyone’s that apathetic. Seems a bit to me like someone who’s spending some significant cash on remolding their house…then allows someone else to choose the builders, abdicates any input on the design, doesn't stop by to check quality or progress, but gets all upset when it doesn’t turn out as they would’ve liked. In a democracy, it seems to me, the people generally get the government they ask for – and it’s the people doing the voting that are doing the asking.

Having said that, I think you’re on to something when you start to make the distinction between politics and partisanship. I would also be frustrated voting in this Parliamentary system. Of course it’s difficult to find a party that represents all of you individual beliefs. However, you can often find individuals that fit pretty well. In the States, I’ve voted in an election where I chose a Republican (individual) for President, a Democrat (individual) for Governor, 2 Republican (individuals for Representative and Senator) followed up by individual choices spread among the Republican, Democrat and Independent Parties for the local offices. I would’ve hated to have been limited to 1 party and no say on the individual who would represent my ideas.

[robert]

Brad,
With all due fairness, we can vote for different parties in the federal, provincial & municipal elections here as well. In a sense, we vote for the local person (MP or MPP) and whichever party wins the most of these local elections gets the leadership of the country (or province) as a prize.
Technically, you don't choose your candidates for President directly either, they are selected by the delegates who are elected but can always vote for whoever they want in the end.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not bragging about our system. Few Canadians are at the moment.

[Brad]

Fair points - Mike. I still don't understand, though, why you haven't been voting.

[Mike]

Well, the points were Roberts, but I'll take a stab at answering your question.

I didn't "not vote" intentionally. I just... didn't get around to it. Something came up. It was raining. It was sunny. In other words, it just didn't mean enough to me. I felt far enough outside of the system that I didn't really care what happened. There was no little box on the paper with a name next to it that made me say, "Yes, this person represents all that is important to me." As I said in the post, though, I've decided it's time to re-engage. Not because I've had a change of heart, but because I believe it's time to change things.

[Brad]

I'm glad you're going to start voting again. If thinking people vote I believe you'll get a thinking government. In the meantime, I've been up here almost two years now and it has been, to say the least, entertaining.

[Mike]

Brad - do not get me started.