The Democratic Assessment: Free and Fair Elections in Canada - Essay Example

of the History and Political Science of the Teacher 0ctober 25, The Democratic Assessment: Free and Fair Elections There is no denying the fact that in a global context, Canada in many respects tends to be a mature, liberal democracy. However, even in mature societies, democratization is a task that tends to be perpetual.1 Canadian electoral democracy indeed is endowed with multiple features that qualify it to be considered a thriving democratic society. Yet, it is a reality that there is no country in the world that affiliates to what may be considered to be ideal standards of democracy.2 Many of the most celebrated democracies of the world, including the Canadian electoral democracy tend to fall short of the ideal of democracy in more than one way.3 Thereby, any assessment of the Canadian electoral democracy needs to be accomplished in the light of this fact. Though the Canadian electoral system to a large extent affiliates to many democratic imperatives like being a representative democracy where the legislative office is decided through popular competitive elections, a political system that affiliates to a multiparty system of democracy, accrual of a range of political choices to the voters, and a reasonably fair and transparent system of governance, still, it will be unfair to conclude that all is well with the Canadian electoral system. Over the years varied political indicators like the dwindling voter turnout, a lukewarm public participation in the political activities, the declining levels of public trust in the political representatives, and the pointing out of the deficiencies inherent in the Canadian electoral system by the policy makers and the political pundits is certainly indicative of a democratic scenario that tends to fall short of an ideally democratic society in more than one way.4 One important aspect of the Canadian electoral system that has accrued much dissatisfaction and opposition in the resent times is Canada’s single member constituency, first past the post electoral system. As per this system, voting in Canada takes place in single member constituencies and the voters tend to vote for their favorite candidate, where the candidate with the highest number of votes in a constituency wins. The first past the post system is favorable in many ways as it has many salient advantages. First past the post system first and foremost is quiet simple and straightforward. Thereby such an electoral system is easy and economical to execute and in no way bothers the people who cannot understand the more complex electoral systems.5 First past the post system is also economical in terms of time in the sense that it takes only a few hours to count the total number of votes and the results could be declared at the earliest.6 This system of electioneering tends to get a sense of the voters’ views as to which party ought to from the government in the simplest possible way and thereby presents a simple and straightforward view pertaining to the peoples’ will.7 However, it goes without saying that irrespective of being an utterly simplistic way of conducting elections, first past the post electoral system in a way suppresses the will and the views of a large number of voters and is certainly not good for democracy.8 Canada has been a thriving democracy since long and now is the high time that the Canadian electoral system must graduate to more inclusive and complex electoral systems. The biggest flaw with the first past the post system is that it readily facilitates a two party system and tends to favor single party governments who are not required to rely on the support of other parties to pass legislations.9 The first past the post system certainly tends to bypass the opinion and aspirations of a large chunk of voters, as the candidates even securing a marginal excess of votes could actually win.10 It does not matter how much votes the losing candidate accrues as the winning candidate is required to get more votes than the losing candidates. Besides, first past the post system gives precedence to tactical voting as it encourages the voters to vote against the candidate they do not like as compared to voting for the candidate they like.11 First past the post system is positively insulting to the public opinion in the sense that it gives ways to wastage of a large number of votes secured by the losing candidates. Though this electoral model ends to eke out a stable majority for the government in power, it goes without saying that it is typically converse to the ideal of turning Canada into a pluralistic democratic society. One of the biggest flaws inherent in the Canadian electoral system is that it severely curtails the number of choices available to the people.12 The political parties are simply not the conglomerates that intend to usurp power by accruing a majority vote, but rather they tend to be the repositories of diverse opinions and ideas. Thereby a political system open to multiple parties tends to be healthier in the sense that it gives a chance to the people to adhere to the suitable opinion of their choice and it allows for the existence of a range of opinions in a thriving modern democratic society. In that context the first past the post system restricts the choices available to the voters and if a voter does not agree with the views of the preferred candidate in one’s constituency, one does not have the mechanisms to register one’s dissent. Thereby, first past the post electoral system prevailing in Canada marginalizes the fringe and small parties as such parties are least likely to win a seat unless a significant part of the population in a region tends to think different from the rest of the nation. The other thing is that the Canadian electoral system also politically marginalizes the minorities and women in the sense that it places the political parties under the pressure to field the most acceptable candidate, while ignoring the interests and opinions of the minorities and the sidelined segments of the society.13 Besides, such an electoral system also curtails the prospects of the issue based parties that tend to focus on linguistic or ethnic concerns or environment, because even if they enjoy the support of a cross section of the population, they win no seats as their support is not concentrated across constituencies.14 Also, when it comes to minorities, the Canadian electoral system is geography oriented and does not accurately represent the actual demographic picture of the nation.15 Hence, though such an electoral system may assure change in terms of the elected candidates, it offers little change in the sphere of ideas and ideologies or in terms of politically empowering the marginalized sections of the society. The other big problem with the Canadian electoral system is that it encourages regionalism and thereby tends to consolidate the anachronistic ideas and ideologies imbued in the political framework of a particular region.16 Rather than dividing seats in consonance with the actual support, the Canadian electoral system tends to facilitate the division of seats in terms of the lumpy support enjoyed by the parties well entrenched in a particular region. This has its advantages in the sense that it allows the political system to reflect the concerns and aspirations of the voters adhering to a specific region. However, this also has its disadvantages in the sense that it makes the political system utterly narrow and parochial and does not allow for the inundation of the political system in specific regions with new ideas and political trends.17 Thereby this electoral system brings in variations in the relative weight of the votes of individual voters in varied regions as it does not allocate seats in proportion to the votes. Thereby such an electoral approach gives way to unwarranted variations in the system. For instance in 1997 elections, the Alliance won two seats while it pulled out a million votes. In contrast the liberals gathered twice the votes and the number of seats that happened to be fifty times more as compared to the alliance. The other thing is that as in such an electoral system, the political parties tend to consolidate their political efforts only in those areas where they enjoy a political majority, when elected they tend to ignore those areas where they lacked a majority support.18 Thereby, these areas do end up being political deserts and the aspirations and political yearnings particular to these regions do get sidelined and ignored in the larger political picture. Thereby, this anachronistic approach of the Canadian electoral system is to a large extent responsible for the disillusionment of the voters with the Canadian democracy and the dwindling voter turnout and the diluting popular participation in the national political system. Hence, one certainly cannot help ascribing to the view that the Canadian electoral system is in the need of some serious changes. A range of policy makers and political scholars have suggested a shift towards proportional representation electoral system to ameliorate the democratic deficit in the Canadian electoral system. It is a more complex and inclusive system that is affiliated to by 21 out of 28 West European democracies. In the proportional representation system the legislators tend to get elected from multimember districts as compared to single member districts. Thereby the number of seats won by a party tends to be in direct proportion to the magnitude of its support amongst the voters in a particular constituency. Hence, proportional representation system is poised to give way to a more democratic political system in Canada, which will bring about governments whose policies tend to be more in consonance with the actual will and aspirations of both the major and minority sections of the society. Proportional representation system will discourage the polarization tendencies amongst the political parties and will make them move towards a collaborative, deliberative and coalition approach, thereby focusing more on issues of national importance rather than pandering to abject politics of vote bank.19 Besides, such a system will be more accurately represent the collective will of the people. This will immensely curtail the wastage of votes and will boost voter turnout as people will vote with the assurance that their vote will not go waste.20 This will also enhance the range of political options available to the people. One of the biggest advantages of the proportional representation system will be that it will certify a fair representation of the issue based parties, women and minorities.21 Conclusively speaking, the Canadian electoral system being first past the post based is open to a plethora of flaws and discrepancies that weaken the holistic participation of the masses in the nation’s political framework and allows a scope to the political parties to manipulate a majority, irrespective of not enjoying the mass support. Besides, this type of electoral system is not conducive for assuring the active political participation and empowerment of the issue based parties, women and minorities. In that context a shift towards proportional representation electoral system does tend to do away with a range of flaws inherent in the Canadian electoral system. Proportional representation is certainly not a panacea that could divest the Canadian democracy of all its discrepancies, yet, it certainly suggests a way forward towards a more inclusive and participative form of governance. Bibliography Caron, Jean-Francois. “End of the First Past the Post Electoral System”. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 22.3 (1999): 19-22. Day, Wilfred. “Proportional Representation, Ontario Style”. Inroads, Winter 2007. Lawson, Dominic. “Vote Yes, or No- the Outcome will Barely Make a Difference”. The Independent, May 3, 2011. McMenemy, John. The Language of Canadian Politics. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006. Nystrom, Lorne. “Parliament and Democracy in the 21st Century: The Case for Proportional Representation”. Canadian Parliamentary Review 26.2 (2003): 2-4. Reynolds, Andrew. The Architecture of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Ringen, Stein. What Democracy is for. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Saiz, Martin. Local Parties in Political and Organizational Perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2005. Sniderman, Paul M. and Benjamin Highton. Facing the Challenge of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011. Thurlow, W. Scott. “Time to Move Beyond Electoral Reform Proposals”. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 32.4 (2009): 28-31. Read More