It is becoming more and more apparent that there is general dissatisfaction in Canada with our form of governance. Frequently there are articles and editorials in our major newspapers about the dominance of political parties and the evolution of one man rule unaccountable to the electorate. The supremacy of parliament that we have taken for granted for years has diminished.

Editorials in today’s Globe and Mail suggest two alternatives to our present dilemma. Either abolish a very costly (estimated at an annual cost of a billion dollars) and largely ineffective form of government based on a House of Commons/Senate which only exist at the pleasure of cabinet (in fact the whims of the prime minister) or else create a new and accountable democracy.

If we opt for the first we would achieve what has been defined as probably the cheapest and most efficient form of government, a benign dictatorship. The world has many examples of autocratic governments. Unfortunately there is never assurance that one-man rule wont change from a benign status to one that is strictly dictatorial, based on self serving power. Professor Ian Hunter of the University of Western Ontario (Suppose the House lights were never turned back on. Feb 10, 2010) asks what good is parliament anyway. As matters stand now “…… no-one would suggest that it holds the government accountable….. Free informed debate no longer occurs in Parliament because party discipline and concentration of power in the prime minister’s office precludes members from speaking honestly.”

An editorial of the same date (Civic Involvement) provides another alternative “….. a new movement advocating democratic accountability in Canada” Such a move would be designed to strengthen the role of Parliament. In an earlier article I have proposed legislation whereby the elected representatives would require the prime minister to get approval from the House before advising the governor general to prorogue government or call an election. It would also provide the electorate with a stronger role through parliamentary committees which are mandated to recommend to the prime minister those to be appointed as new senators and supreme court members.

Probably such a new movement, “Canadians Advocating Political Participation” could best achieve government accountability through a system of free voting allowing Members of Parliament to speak and vote using their own discretion without coercion to adhere to party control. Members in elected bodies in other democratic countries are not so shackled by strict party discipline. Under our system members owe their allegiance first to the political party rather than to their country or its electorate.

Past articles have noted the work of Dr. Elinor Ostrom, an American political scientist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. She is a strong believer in grassroots institutions working toward what people want. A form of government accountable to the electorate is far more likely to listen to voters and support their efforts in actually doing the things that the voters wish rather than actions of a political party. The latter are much more prone to enacting legislation based on pressure by lobby groups, many promoting industrial interests.

Probably the most notable example is that parliament would endorse legislation in this day and age based on strong action in the field of climate change. Polls indicate that Canadians want government to show leadership in making the world a safer place to bring up families with an emphasis on a future quality of life for our grandchildren. Our government on the other hand, based on dominance by a political party, appears obsessed with supporting big business and its preference for bolstering the status quo. Our taxpayers’ dollars appear to be directed today primarily to support for the automotive industry and big financial institutions.

Elected representatives must be free to listen to their voters and act accordingly. An M.P. accountable to the people of Canada cannot serve the electorate in a form of government which commands loyalty to a political party and its narrow policies. We need a House of Commons which is able to act on issues of importance to the public rather than just being a rubber stamp for or against the prime minister’s agenda.