Does ongoing realignment in Canada's federal party system represent a danger to Canadian democracy and sovereignty?

For permission to reprint this article in whole or in part, please contact the Centre for the Study of Civic Renewal at info@civicrenewalonline.org or by telephone at 416-580-4885.

____________________________________________________________________

Questioning The Urge To Merge

Adrienne Snow

To say Canada is "at a crossroads" is a cliché. Yet at the moment, facing what may be the most significant federal political realignment in the country's history, the expression seems inescapable.

As Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay prepare to create a "Conservative" party from the two feuding wings of the federal Progressive Conservative Party that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the New Democratic Party and the Canadian Action Party (CAP), founded by former federal Liberal cabinet minister, Paul Hellyer, in the late nineties, have, to considerably less fanfare, also recently been discussing a merger of their own. <1>

And with last week's news that Stéphane Dion, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, is contemplating retirement, evolution within the federal Liberals seems to be under way as well.

While the Conservative merger purportedly is aimed at forming an alternative to the long governing Liberals, chiefly, it seems, because the merger's backers have suddenly, after a decade of bickering and inaction, decided one is needed, the NDP-Canadian Action Party merger seeks to place the question of preserving Canada's sovereignty front and centre on the public agenda, in reaction to ongoing globalization and calls from some conservatives of both the merging right-wing parties, <2>, <3> and from some Liberals, including incoming leader Paul Martin, for increased economic, military, and other integration, or harmonization, with the United States.

A third emerging political faction to watch in the months to come will be the Sheila Copps element of the Liberal Party, which, with its championing of Canadian culture and Canadian sovereignty in such areas as foreign policy and defence, <4> seems perhaps more in tune with the NDP-CAP coalition than with the accommodating approach Paul Martin seems likely to deploy
on many policy files of interest to the United States, such as the Kyoto Accord <5> and continental defence. <6>

And so, although the Liberals' instinct for papering over internal dissent whenever party unity is needed to win yet another election may make it difficult to imagine, the possibility of a serious schism occurring between the Liberals' Canadian nationalists and continentalists, while, for the moment, seemingly remote, is nonetheless real. Should such a split happen, the prospects of a complete collapse of the apparently ever-governing Liberals, similar to the Progressive Conservatives' spectacular electoral wipe out in 1993, while seemingly equally remote at the moment, would then also become real.

For if the policy directions adopted by Mr. Martin as Prime Minister are consistent with his claim earlier this year that Canada and the United States share, "[A] common history … and a mutual set of values," <7> (One wonders if he has read about the American Revolution, the War of 1812, Confederation, or the quite different histories of the two countries' handling of both world wars.), one can envision circumstances under which Ms. Copps, or another of the determined defenders of Canadian sovereignty the Liberal Party continues to house, may try to mount a coup not dissimilar to Mr. Martin's own against Prime Minister Chrétien in recent years.

Should that happen, it is not entirely impossible further "doubling up" on the federal political scene - whether between Ms. Copps, her supporters, and the new NDP-CAP alliance, or between at least some "Martin Liberals" and the new, and seemingly solidly continentalist (in spite of the long-standing Tory tradition of Canadian nationalism), "Conservative" party - may occur.

It is certainly possible, as recent history shows, for a governing federal party to both splinter and be reduced to a very small minority in a single election, where fundamental points of principle - such as internal differences over the PCs' approach to both Quebec and to the West, in the case of the Progressive Conservatives' 1993 two-seat implosion - are at stake.

The Liberals may appear to be rallying behind Mr. Martin for the moment. But whether, given the considerable ideological differences that now appear to exist within the Liberal caucus, that unity will continue, and whether all the present Liberal caucus members will choose to run in the next federal election as members of a Paul Martin-led party, is difficult to foretell.

And whether the ongoing realignment of the federal party system will therefore actually continue is, of course, nearly impossible to determine.

Decreased Democratic Representation for the Poor?

However, from beneath the surface of the current high-fiving, happy-faced "reunion" of two of Canada's three conservative parties (The Bloc Québécois being the still-missing piece of the long scattered pan-Canadian conservative puzzle.), and the burbles of excitement emanating from the NDP and the Canadian Action Party, as they move to expand their membership, and, presumably, their influence, two issues of potential long term national significance are emerging.

First, although such an outcome may seem remote at the moment, the above suggests Canada's federal parties may be commencing a slow drift toward a steady state two-party system not dissimilar from that of the United States.

But based on the United States' experience with such an arrangement, it is to be hoped that will not happen.

While superficially equipped with all the institutional checks and balances needed for the democratic, effective and equal representation of all Americans within America's federal government, abundant current evidence from the U. S. clearly shows a bipartisan, elected bicameral, republican system of government does not necessarily provide more representative and responsive government than Canada's existing partisan and governing institutions.

The Canadian system, with its greater openness to, and history of, robust national third, fourth, and even fifth or sixth parties, seems to offer, among other benefits, the virtue of retaining the trust, interest, and respect of an at least somewhat broader and more inclusive segment of the Canadian public than does America's current bipartisan arrangement.

For instance, while voter turnout in Canada in the 2000 federal election was distressingly low, at only 61.2% (The lowest general election turnout ever.) <8>, voter participation in national elections - particularly among less well-educated and less affluent voters - in the United States, where a two-party system has long prevailed, has in recent years been significantly worse again.

According to recent data from the U. S. Census Bureau, voter turnout for Americans with only a high school education, or equivalent, fell from approximately 59% in 1980 to 49% in 1996 and, again, in 2000. <9> Such a rapid drop among less educated, generally less affluent Americans, suggests many low income Americans have turned away from their country's highly partisan, two-party political system. Arguably, that is so mostly because those same lower income Americans have begun to believe neither of the two existing mainstream parties speaks to their concerns and life experiences, and that efforts at civic engagement - such as following politics or voting - are pointless.

As Harvard Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press, Thomas E. Patterson, has noted, poorer, less educated American voters now perceive that a partisan system offering a choice only between Republicans (traditionally, generally the party of the affluent) and Democrats (traditionally representative of the aspiring middle class) leaves no room for representation of their interests, or for serious efforts to address their greatest social and economic concerns. <10>

That lower income Americans are now largely unrepresented by their country's two-party system is an argument further supported by a Statistics Canada study, among others, showing that families in the bottom quarter of the U.S. income distribution now have significantly lower standards of living than Canadians in a similar position on our national income distribution, in spite of U.S. economic growth that has been much greater than Canada's for most of the past decade. <11> The same study also shows that, while government policies helped stabilize the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Canadians throughout the 1990s, in the United States, the gap between rich and poor has steadily widened, from the mid 1980s to the present. <12>

In short, it would appear the policies espoused, in varying degrees, by both major American parties since the first election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, such as welfare reform and multiple rounds of significant tax cuts, have made the lives of the half of America's citizens who have less, relatively worse, not better.

In consequence, those Americans, seeing the extent to which their well-being has been more or less completely neglected by both Republicans and Democrats, and knowing they have no meaningful political alternatives - no well established third or fourth parties to which to turn - have begun to opt out of the shared public life of their country by the millions; their economic exclusion giving rise to a state of civic exclusion perhaps unprecedented in the history of the United States.

So, if the political realignments now happening in Canada result, in the long run, in a two-party system similar to that of the United States, it seems only too possible similar declines in Canadian citizens' engagement and in policy makers' sensitivity and responsiveness to the needs and wishes of Canadians with lower incomes may also occur.

Are Our Federal Elected Officials Now Polarizing on Questions of Canadian Sovereignty?

The second significant trend emerging amid the merging and new-leader-selecting happening in Ottawa is the rise of commitment to Canadian sovereignty as a point of political differentiation, rather than of agreement, for federal elected representatives. That is, as it should go without saying, a direction in which the country's federal officials, if they are continuing to work for the best interests of Canada and of all Canadians, clearly ought never to move.

But as the Progressive Conservative-Canadian Alliance merger seems increasingly likely to be finalized, and as the NDP and the CAP (And, perhaps, eventually, the Sheila Copps element
within the Liberal Party?) move to set up shared housekeeping in a party explicitly intended to offset, among other policy directions, the continentalist tendencies of some members of the other federal parties, Canadian federal politicians' commitment to the continued existence of a strong, united, sovereign Canada - rather than to a particular approach to social or economic reform (Such as "trickle-down", tax cutting conservatism or "tax-and-spend" liberalism.) - seems to be in some danger of becoming the key "wedge" issue on the country's policy-making agenda.

So, although the shuffling of partisan deck chairs that now seems likely to produce three strong and somewhat revitalized national (Or nearly national, for Quebec appears to continue to be a peripheral consideration for both the merger-happy New Democrats and the "Conservatives".)
may superficially seem as if it will lead to renewal in Canada's federal party system, to those who value our federal political parties as - first and foremost - vehicles for conducting an informed and inclusive national debate about how best government can contribute to the well-being of Canada and of all Canadians, there are a number of undercurrents and omissions in the ongoing realignment of our federal parties that ought to be occasion for further analysis and reflection among Canadians.

Times of change in politics, as in business and elsewhere, can bring challenges and potential hazards, as well as opportunities.

Should the movement toward apparent increased continentalism among some federal elected officials continue, or should the realignment of Canada's federal parties progress any further in the direction of a bipartisan system, or if Quebec should continue to fail to find adequate representation through more than one of the newly revamped federal parties, the optimism presently in the air because of the ongoing mating and merging of our federal parties may, in the months and years to come, prove to be both naïve and misplaced.

______________________________________________________________________________
References

<1> CAP Adopts Proposal to Merge with NDP to Form Big, New, Progressive, Pro-Canada Party. Retrieved October 23, 2003 from http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/MainPages/News.asp?Type=secPressRel&ID=314&Language=English.

<2> MacKay, P. Notes for an address by Peter MacKay, M.P. to the Confederation Club. Retrieved October 24, 2003 from http://www.pcparty.ca/doc/730/.

<3> Marowitz, R. Quebec sovereignty is dead: Harper. Retrieved October 24, 2003 from http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/09/09/180628-cp.html.

<4> Copps, S. Canada and the World. Retrieved October 21, 2003 from http://sheilacopps.ca/speech_conc.php.

<5> Martin, P. Paul Martin's Statement to the House of Commons on the Kyoto Accord. Retrieved July 3, 2003 from http://www.paulmartintimes.ca/where-paul-stands/stories_e.asp?id=364.

<6> Martin, P. Canada's Role in a Complex World. Retrieved October 21, 2003 from http://www.. paulmartintimes.ca/where-paul-stands/stories_e.asp?id=526.

<7> Martin, P. Canada's Role in a Complex World. Retrieved October 21, 2003 from http://www.. paulmartintimes.ca/where-paul-stands/stories_e.asp?id=526.

<8> Voter Turnout at Federal Elections and Referendums, 1867-2000 Ottawa. Elections Canada. Retrieved October 23, 2003 from http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&document=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false.

<9> Reported Voting and Registration by Region, Educational Attainment and Labor Force: November 1964 to 2000 (December 31, 2002) [data file] Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved October 15, 2003 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html.

<10> Patterson, T. E. (2002). We the People: A Concise Introduction to American Politics. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Retrieved October 23, 2003 from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072401885/student_view0/chapter1/chapter_objectives.html.

<11> Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003) Paris. The Policy Agenda for Growth: An Overview of the Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries.

<12> Statistics Canada (2000, July 28). The Daily. Retrieved October 21, 2003 from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000728/d000728a.htm.

Return to
Research
Index