The Citizen Engagement Round Table: Revitalizing the Political Process June 12, 1996

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Citizen Engagement Round Table: Revitalizing the Political Process June 12, 1996"

Jerome Poole
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Citizen Engagement Round Table: Revitalizing the Political Process June 12, 1996 In Attendance: R. Cardinal, D. Good, M. Fortier, R. Hubbard, M. Hynna, R. Lafleur, J. Stagg, K. Stanley, N. Wildgoose; S. Sutherland (speaker); P. Paré, M. Solberg, P. Torsney (special guests); T. Plumptre, C. McQuillan, I. Sahas, J. Walker (IOG). The roundtable met to discuss the role of Canadian political parties in activating and mediating citizen input to policy development, with particular focus on prospects for revitalization. Following a short introduction to the subject by Tim Plumptre, Dr. Sharon Sutherland, Director of Graduate Studies at the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, presented an analysis of the institutional context within which political parties operate, offering prescriptions for the renewal of Canadian political parties, institutions of state, and the role of citizens within the political system. Following her presentation, special guests Philippe Paré (Bloc Québecois), Monte Solberg (Reform), and Paddy Torsney (Liberal) offered their respective positions on the issue, bridging theoretical issues addressed by Dr. Sutherland with the practical methods of citizen engagement employed by the three parties. An animated dialogue ensued, which uncovered several of the deepest fault lines between Canadian political institutions, civil society, and political parties, exposing the interests and mechanisms that amplify the negative effect of these faults on the democratic process. Dr. Sharon Sutherland Dr. Sharon Sutherland, Director of Graduate Studies at the Department of Political Science, Carleton University, delivered a presentation which addressed the overarching institutional roles, relationships, and rules of governance within the Westminster model, the crucible within which Canadian political parties and citizens converge 1. Dr. Sutherland's central theme was the revitalization of political parties in a mediating role between the public and government will not happen until institutional changes within the Westminster system take place and the political parties themselves become institutions of state rather than of civil society. She argued that both the Canadian state and government are in the midst of a crisis, and referred to increasing demands for greater direct public input to government (through referenda, 1 The full text of this presentation will be sent to participants; the following is a summary of the themes and key arguments presented.

2 talk radio, etc.) and the regional fragmentation of interests and parties as symptomatic manifestations of this crisis. As a result of this crisis, she feels that Canada no longer possesses true party government at the national level, rendering our state and government largely incapable of playing its required role in addressing a larger set of impending issues. According to Dr. Sutherland, there are several factors contributing to this crisis, many of which emanate from the fact that economic modernity has reordered the relationship between the state and civil society. Specifically, it has impelled and empowered civil society to oppose the interests and regulatory boundaries of the state, primarily because the state is viewed as a barrier to the economic interests of certain firms and individuals. Political parties, she argues, contribute to this problem because they are actually private organizations of civil society, effectively acting as instruments of this movement. The often unintended result of their activities is to undermine the role of government. The objective toward which parties should strive, Dr. Sutherland argues, is not to subvert government, because that would not solve any of the current problems, and would likely exacerbate current problems. Instead, the objective of political parties should be to improve government, making it more adaptive, responsible, and accountable. Thus, Dr. Sutherland argued that public input through political parties will only be effective in attaining the social and economic objectives of Canadians if this reordering of objectives within political parties takes place, and this reordering of objectives can only take place if Canada makes adjustments to the structure of the political system as a whole. To improve the system, Dr. Sutherland advanced a series of arguments, beginning with the premise that the Westminster model is the most viable model of political organization for Canada. This was stated for two reasons: First, because of its retrospective "learning" character 2 ; and second, because the problems currently faced have emerged as a result of alterations made to the original model. Improvement requires a series of normative and regulatory reforms to take the model back to its original character, along with a reorganization of the relationship between political parties, civil society, and the state. Dr. Sutherland put forward two central premises for renewal of Canada's political system: 1. Civil society's interests must be mediated though intermediary institutions like political parties; 2. The state's legitimacy must be protected. Beyond these conceptual changes, Dr. Sutherland presented a number of propositions for structural change within the current system. The solutions presented were the following: 2 Canada's system of government possesses a "retrospective cycle", where problems and signals come from citizens through representatives who then fight for policy revisions in the House of Commons and in committees -- Dr. Sutherland argues that this "learning cycle" is unique to Canada in extent and more importantly in potential. 2

3 3 1. Take parties out of civil society and alter the "state-eroding" objectives of politicians by having the state fund political parties (as is done in several European nations); 2. Reduce the number of MP's; 3. Reduce the role of Question Period as a venue for grandstanding; 4. Allow the research, consultation, and cooperative work of committees and cabinet to drive political dialogue; 5. Train MP's and ministers in communication (personal and electronic) to help increase dialogue with constituents, and to help them address issues directly with media; 6. Change accountability systems both for MP's and public servants, lifting immunity and "gag" rules, entrenching the premise of accountability as answerability, not as culpability, and allowing public servants to use counsel and answer to questions of misconduct during tribunals; 7. Increase the number of secondments from the public service to ministerial offices, to help build mutual understanding of the other's needs and demands. Combined, Dr. Sutherland argued, these changes would improve the capacity of the political system to engage citizens more actively and more cohesively through political parties. Monte Solberg Monte Solberg, a Reform Party MP from Medicine Hat, Alberta, agreed in part with Dr. Sutherland's diagnosis of the barriers impeding political parties and officers of the state. However, Mr. Solberg took issue with some of Dr. Sutherland's key points and prescriptions. In particular, he argued that new (regional) parties have emerged in Canada because the political system and traditional parties have failed to accommodate the interests of ordinary citizens and of Canada's regions. He contended that the current Westminster model could not adequately redress the issue of regionalism. To accomplish these goals, he argued that Senate reform be implemented, and decentralization of Federal authority to provincial and local governments should increase. Mr. Solberg also presented a view of the individual in politics which differs significantly from that of Dr. Sutherland: Individuals form the basis of political organization, and the closer individuals can get to political decisionmaking, the better. To that end, Mr. Solberg advocated the implementation of referenda on moral issues and broad issues of concern (such as Canadian unity), the creation of MP recall rights, and the ability of citizens to bring legislation to Parliament. He argued that the Federal government has over the past 25 years overstepped its bounds in usurping responsibilities best left to the individual, and that individuals must be given back both authority and responsibility in political and social affairs. Philippe Paré Mr. Paré's presentation began by identifying what he viewed as the central issue at hand, public disenchantment with the political system and the ability of political parties to mitigate this

4 4 disenchantment. He argued that public disenchantment derives from a number of sources, some of which are a direct result of the actions of political parties and leaders. In particular, he argued that the increased political emphasis on individual rights contradicts reality -- citizens continue to feel distanced from their governors. Worsening the situation, "false consultations" and other political window dressings detract significantly from the public's respect for public actors, and in consequence, public institutions with the result that they feel political leaders cannot be trusted. His second argument was that the Canadian political system had proven incapable of integrating regional interests, and that while regional parties do detract from the Westminster model, their very power is proof that this model does not work, particularly for Quebec. To redress the issue of public disenchantment, political parties need to change in several ways, according to Mr. Paré. They should actively operate at a local level between elections, engaging citizens not only when they need their votes; they should also ally with popular movements, involving themselves in the grassroots creation of solutions; and they should build closer ties with party members, participating directly in policy dialogue with members at the constituency level to enable bottom-up policy development to take place. He also suggested that the public must take greater action and responsibility for their own governance. Citizens must take advantage of opportunities to express opinion and contribute to debate, through individual action (writing letters to a newspaper), but more importantly through public participation in organized associations (political parties being one of many). Paddy Torsney Paddy Torsney, a Liberal MP from Burlington, Ontario, offered a description of her party's (and her own) work in revitalizing citizen engagement through the political process. To begin, she reminded the participants that public consultation formed one of the key elements of the Liberal platform during the last election, and that the Red Book itself was created with a high level of citizen input. Ms. Torsney went on to describe and analyze her own riding level consultative work, arguing that there are positive and negative approaches to engaging citizens at the community level. Assembling small groups of non-partisan citizens to discuss issues of specific public interest brings the best results, she claimed. However, a factor which can upset such processes is the participation of interest groups, not only because they can skew the discussion, but they can alter an MP's perception of public sentiment on a given issue. In similar vein to Mr. Solberg and Mr. Paré, she argued that individuals must motivate themselves to get involved and take greater responsibility for political outcomes. However, she believes the Reform party's solutions to citizen participation are flawed. Without any force mediating between the individual

5 5 and government, such as a political party, a citizen forum, or an interest association, public debate becomes polarized, and since there is often no mechanism to share information or experience, uninformed opinions can play a significant role in the resulting policy initiative. Finally, she claimed that citizen expectations of MP's are changing in many ways, partially reflecting the increasing differences in opinion over the role of government in society. This lack of common beliefs about the role of government makes it more difficult for MP's to please constituents, so the only way to approach the situation is to be as open to dialogue and input from the public as possible. MODES OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THROUGH/AROUND POLITICAL PARTIES Each political representative stressed their commitment to engaging citizens more comprehensively on key issues of public debate. A number of mechanisms to accomplish these objectives were presented, some of which include political parties, others which effectively bypass them. The group evaluated the comparative merits of these methods, as well as discussing the rationales which underpin their use and/or advocacy. The undertone of these issues centred upon whether "single voices" were important elements of a political system, or whether collective voice should be fostered through political party institutions. Referenda One guest argued that referenda were the most direct and logical means to meet public demands for increased participation. From this person's perspective, referenda should be employed to address public concerns much more often, particularly on moral issues and on issues of broad public significance. According to this argument, the public demand for input would be met, and responsibility placed in their hands, increasing incentives for the public to become more informed. As the conversation evolved, both the premise and the practice of referenda were challenged. Several participants agreed that referenda serve to retain the status quo in society, because for those who are uninformed, rejecting a new idea is much safer than taking a chance on something new. Switzerland's reliance on referenda to extend the vote to women was cited as a prime example, where it was not until 1982 that this vote passed. Others contended that referenda act as polarizing mechanisms; because there are no mediums for dialogue and consensus building within them, citizens are more susceptible to manipulation, and less willing to consider a range of options. Others explored the premises underlying the increased use of referenda. Several participants contended that the conception of referenda among its advocates within our political system is misplaced. One participant posed that referenda be considered not as processes to decide whether to do something, but rather how to do it. A more critical argument was put forward, which placed referenda in the context of institutional failure, arguing that demands for such processes were in fact symptomatic of the inability of parties and other

6 6 mediating institutions to incorporate the demands of citizens. According to this argument, the real danger lies in believing that referenda will placate public demands for input or resolve the problems within political and social institutions; referenda as subversion of politics and politicians is not the answer. Town meetings and telephone polls These grassroots-based approaches are employed primarily by the Reform party, although similar processes have been used by some other parties. While riding level approaches were advocated as important for parties to pursue, the group generally felt that these particular mechanisms were suspect. They were generally viewed as venting mechanisms for the public rather than as proactive models of garnering citizen input. Worse, according to those who had used such methods, MP's often receive a skewed sense of public opinion from such processes, because certain members of the public (interest groups and those with strongly held and often narrow positions) capture the dialogue. Small local consultations According to one participant, small, informal consultations with random groups of citizens were the best way for MP's to obtain input from the public. Following this discussion, three important issues were added to the debate by two of the guests: First, there is a need for MP's to be more active in asking for input between elections; second, for citizens to feel a part of the system, issues must be brought to them before a decision has been made; and third, these mechanisms do not work if they are geared toward "selling" a given policy - in fact, credibility of the individual and the political system may be compromised when this is done. Elections as consultation Finally, another participant offered an argument that recent polling data indicated that most citizen's preferred mode of participation was through elections, and other processes of consultation were less important than some have contended. Others agreed that consulting the public (or advocating the use of referenda) on every issue was unnecessary, but they did agree that elections do not suffice to placate public discontent. INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS For much of the evening, discussion centred upon the institutional rules and practices which serve to impede greater public involvement through political parties. It was determined that a number of systemic failures force political parties, public servants, and indeed the state itself into practices which are less than ideal, both in terms of systemic viability and in terms of engaging citizens. The general consensus among most participants was that the existing system could be reformed, but a number of established systems and roles would have to be reformed in order for this to take place. Others remained unconvinced, claiming that the system as a whole must be transformed.

7 7 Systemic Barriers Impeding Increased Participation in Political Parties Participants frequently referred to a number of circumstances which condition the practices of Parliament, its members, and the bureaucracy. Combined, the causes and symptoms which create this context were believed to skew the intended nature of the system, with two negative effects: a limit on the ability of citizens to provide substantive input through political parties or other mediating bodies; and the creation of an environment which unfairly calls into question the capacity of governing institutions and parties, thus generating demand for referenda and other mechanisms to subvert the role of government. Parliamentary practices Several participants argued that standard Parliamentary practices indirectly contribute to this problem by hampering the ability of MP's to reflect citizen sentiment. In particular, two conditions, the demand for uniform voting by governing parties and ministerial (cabinet) based policymaking severely limit the ability of MP's to adequately reflect citizen input in Parliamentary votes or to direct public input upward. These characteristics of our system are driven largely by the threat of Parliamentary dissolution if a bill does not pass. The potential repercussions of opening dialogue or breaking party ranks, then, create a disincentive against regular public input or dialogue. Accountability systems According to several guests, accountability procedures which have become normative practices in government undermine the legitimacy not only of MP's but also of public servants and public institutions. The group discussed the fact that accountability has become equated with responsibility in government, where someone at or near the top must "take the fall" when errors or failures take place. Culpability is inferred when accountability is invoked, often when the accused had no intent or had no knowledge of the problem. The group felt that situations like this undermine the legitimacy of institutions and political parties in the eyes of the public. Under this system of accountability, the group concurred that not only are root causes of problems not adequately addressed, ministers who are accused have no means of defence other than resigning or blaming the bureaucracy, which is not able to defend itself under current rules of government practice. According to the participants, unless public servants are granted the legal ability to defend themselves against attacks from politicians and media, the legitimacy of the Canadian state will continue to erode, creating a vicious circle of eroding legitimacy and increased demand for the subversion of public institutions. Some believe that this circle may ultimately be a threat to representative and responsible democracy. In the meantime, the result is a tendency within government toward control, safety, and security, which runs counter to the openness, innovativeness, and willingness to change which greater public input through political parties would require. Media

8 Accountability issues were also discussed in the context of media's role in public dialogue. There was some concern raised that given the media's demand for conflict, providing public servants the ability to respond to criticism might only worsen the public's view of the state, just as it has worsened their view of bickering politicians. Related issues regarding the inherent demands of media were thought to run counter to some of Dr. Sutherland's proposals for institutional change, particularly regarding change within the House of Commons. On the other hand, media has become interested in some of the engagement processes that political parties have embraced, and this may result in positive outcomes for democratic development in Canada. In sum, the media will have an impact on any future change in public participation in political parties, but that influence may be positive or negative, depending on the initiatives taken and the objective sought. Potential solutions The participants offered a range of solutions to the above problems; it was felt that combined, these could prompt a revitalization of citizen input to political parties, and a renewal of the Canadian political system. One participant advocated a change of Parliamentary voting rules so that rejecting a bill would not cause the dissolution of Parliament; another participant argued that government must reallocate resources to inform citizens more comprehensively about upcoming key issues; others submitted that accountability rules and norms for bureaucrats must enable them to respond to politician's criticism, and that the overall accountability system be reconfigured to focus on answerability, not culpability. Combined, these changes would have the effect of reducing the need for control over the political environment; they would also potentially increase the credibility of institutions and ministers, as passing the buck and head rolling would not be as necessary, while identification and resolution of causal forces would be easier to accomplish. Others were less sanguine about the possibilities for "tinkering" with our institutions, advocating more fundamental changes to the Federal system. In particular, decentralization and subsidiarity were strongly supported by one of the guests as the best mechanism to get closer to the interests of communities and individual Canadians. Another guest raised a concern as to whether state support for political parties might actually create more problems than it might solve, actually distancing the public further from its governors. In the end, a majority of participants concurred that for political parties to engage the public more deeply, some broader institutional change was required in tandem with a more concerted effort to create forums of dialogue between MP's and constituents, especially between elections and on key issues of broad significance. The one point that all of the guests agreed upon was that citizens themselves must take on greater responsibilities within the political system, that they are also accountable for the society and communities in which they live - laying blame without taking action is a recipe for a continued erosion of public institutions, and ultimately, the public good. 8

Independence, Accountability and Human Rights

NOTE: This article represents the views of the author and not the Department of Justice, Yukon Government. Independence, Accountability and Human Rights by Lorne Sossin 1 As part of the Yukon Human Rights