Main Page

Churchilliad
Online Index

"THE GOVERNMENT
 IS THE SERVANT
 OF THE PEOPLE
 AND NOT ITS MASTER"

Winston Churchill
Oslo 1948

Churchill Debate at Hart House Featuring Jeffrey Simpson

Volume 14 Issue 1 Spring 2002

The resolution at this year’s Churchill Debate at Hart House was “This House supports Canada’s elected dictatorship.”  The debate was designed to address the thesis of Jeffrey Simpson’s book, The Friendly Dictatorship, by turning it on its head and putting the government side in the rather tough position of defending, what many would argue, is a parliamentary system in need of repair. 

Prime Minister Aaron Rousseau, Vic III, opened his remarks by saying, “Liberal Party dominance, much like any dominant party system, is actually a good thing for Canada.”  He supported this assertion by stating, “A party that does not have to face imminent electoral defeat has the opportunity to govern in the national interest; they can look at the long-term rather than short-term; and there is a built-in measure of accountability.”  

Long-term consistent policy that would not have paid off in the short-term could be found in Ontario under the governments of Frost, Robarts and Davis.  “We were able to see things like public transit that takes half a decade to build and is outside the regular time horizon of political payoffs.” This type of single-party dominance provides accountability by not being able to answer every criticism by means of blaming the previous government.

Next, Member of Opposition Bernard Yam, SMC IV, questioned what was meant by national interest and said that what national interest in a democracy means is what people want.  He argued there is a lack of checks-and-balances in the system today.  He cited the fact that the government appoints the ethics counselor and the senators.  When there is no power to remove a government, no matter what kind of bills they pass, we see a dictatorship.  “In general we like to argue that dictatorship is a bad thing,” he said. He said that our system places all the power with the Prime Minister and MPs must vote with him at the expense of their constituencies.  “When you have personal rule rather than government rule we see a dictatorship. What Mr. Rousseau put forth is institution-by-person and not by the people of Canada, and that is wrong.”

Minister of the Crown Duncan Plant, Vic II, said the electorate will elect the most competent party every time, even if it is the same party.  He asked, “If that is what [voters] truly want, then isn’t that the truest form of democracy?”  He argued, “Voters are not currently denying their votes to the Liberals out of spite because they feel they have been in too long.  They are not giving them sympathy votes.  Therefore, they are voting for a competent government.”

“Cabinet ministers gain a certain level of competency after they have been in power for a while,” he explained, “and they can truly implement good policies and become good managers of the economy.”

He defended the government’s case by stating, “Our system was not designed to have checks and balances.  It was designed for expediency.  If the government is doing bad things, it gets kicked out.  The American system is very different than Canadian Parliamentary Democracy and is prone to morass and gridlock.”

Leader of the Opposition, Michael Meeuwis, Trin IV, opened his arguments with the witty assertion: “Just because the maple leaf is Canada’s national symbol and just because the beaver is our national animal, it does not mean the Liberal Party of Canada is our natural party of government to rule over us like kings.” 

The governing party benefits from the system so there is no impetus for reform,” he said. “In opposition, we do not have a plan.  All we are doing is decrying the situation and saying it is not very good.  But if the government’s case is that we should settle for the mediocrity we are used to, then that is not a good enough plan for this wonderful nation.”

Meeuwis posed the question: “If voters know the Liberals will always be elected, why then should they bother to vote?  A lot of people in the last election asked the same question,” he said.  “This apathy is a sign of an unhealthy democracy.  A democracy needs vigour, vigourous debate, vigourous opposition and a government that must cut deals and work with other parties. That is not what we have.”

Using Japan as an example, he argued that dominant parties solidify their hold on power to the extent that the institutions of the country are in the hands of that party.

“When MPs have no real power, in a system that is dominated by the party leader, and party discipline is rigidly enforced, the result is apathetic MPs responding to an apathetic public.  Expediency is not a good thing if it comes at the expense of the vigour of a democracy. Stalin was expedient.”

In concluding he said: “The purest form of democracy is people voting; it is people turning-out; it is people having a role in their government. Being in power does not signify you are a good ruler. Being in power for too long signifies you have too much power.  That power should end. We oppose.”

Prime Minister Rousseau rebutted with, “It is not at all clear that having a dominant party is responsible for the problems detailed in the opposition’s arguments.  The Liberals have support from every segment and sector of the country and can bring them together so we don’t have to choose between extremes and can have some kind of moderate political center in Canada.”

The debate ended and there was a call for “Speeches From The Floor.”  Afterwards, The Globe and Mail’s national-affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson spoke.  He began by addressing a number of the points raised on both sides and by some of the speakers from the floor. He addressed the issue of voter turnout and how some Canadians, mostly those who live south of Bloor Street in Toronto, regard our turnout at 61% as being better than the Americans.  What they don’t understand is we measure it based on registered voters where the U.S. looks at total population.

He continued that Canadian parliamentary democracy, as it has evolved, places more power in the hands of the prime minister than does any other democracy, far more than the U.S. President wields, but more too, than political leaders exercise in other parliamentary democracies. This is the system Jean Chretien knows and controls and nothing within it forces him to change.  He is the “Sun King of the government and remains the pivot around which all revolves.”

Canada’s democracy is not a wreck.  It could, however, stand a bit of improvement.  He acknowledged Canadian cynicism towards politicians and the democratic process and admits that it is well founded, but we cannot give up.

As he wrote in The Friendly Dictatorship, “citizens will always disagree about what would constitute a better country, how to achieve it.  That is the essence of democracy.  The more effective, accountable, open and representative our democracy, the greater chance that, through the clash of ideas and the interplay of political forces, we can inch, however slowly, toward that better country.  Apathy and cynicism are soulmates.  They are on the rise, but they are democracy’s foes and, as such, worth combating.” ¨