By Justin Ling, Opinions Contributor
“Get back to work,” reads the simple text, superimposed onto a postcard picture of the Canadian parliament building.
This blunt display is the icon for the now-famous Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament Facebook group, which has seen its membership rocketing towards 200,000 people in recent days, with dozens more joining every minute.
This outlet has helped fuel the righteous indignation over Harper’s undemocratic actions and has garnered daily attention in just about every Canadian news outlet since that fateful Friday. Harper had no doubt hoped to bury the news under new year’s excitement.
The online reaction was immediate and fierce: “What kind of slow-witted alcoholics does he take us for?”
But this isn’t new territory.
Unlike last time, where he prorogued the house to dodge an unruly group of “separatists and socialists” who were trying to install themselves in the prime minister’s office, this time Harper is avoiding backlash from the detainee abuse inquiry.
What have we learned since? Is it that Stephen Harper is holding Michaëlle Jean hostage, or that our prime minister has the same social inability to play with others as a five-year-old child? While both may be true, they are beside the point.
What we should have learned is that it’s time for change.
Some are quick to accept the prorogation because their abhorrence for parliament is so deep-rooted and perpetual that no matter what is being done and who is in power, they will find a reason to take issue with it. In the views of these disgruntled naysayers, our members of parliament wouldn’t be doing anything but bickering anyway, so what difference does it make if they’re at work or not?
Unfortunately for these folks, apathy does not get results and the occasional gem that comes out of Ottawa is reason enough not to give up all hope.
What both sides are failing to realize is that there is a third option. The most recent prorogation is merely a symptom of an overall disease that plagues our house of commons, one that must be rooted out with good, old-fashioned populism. And no, not like the fanatically hilarious tea-baggers that besiege our neighbours to the south.
Imagine, if you will, a system where electors can write their own bills to be debated on the floor or one where voters have the ability to put their members of parliament up for a special election when they’re dissatisfied with his or her performance.
And yes, that means the voter could theoretically fire the prime minister whenever they damn well please.
Right now voter outrage and fury between election dates has no outlets other than petitions, letter-writing campaigns, rallies and Facebook groups. If we truly respected our democratic institutions, we would be pushing ways to channel this frustration into more productive activities.
Such revelations have been whispered about in fringe circles for quite some time. Well-intentioned advocacy groups, such as Fair Vote Canada and its Nova Scotia subsidiary, have pushed for democratic reforms for the past decade. In the past they’ve succeeded by putting ballot initiatives on electoral reform forward in Ontario and British Columbia.
Other partisan groups have suggested similar ideas. The federal New Democratic and Green parties, as well as the provincial start-up Atlantica party, have advocated for varying degrees of democratic reform, yet have essentially accepted defeat. They know that the ruling Conservatives and Liberals would never support a resolution that would diminish their seat totals or cause them submit to genuine accountability.
The Liberals and Conservatives won’t join the movement wilfully. Why would they, knowing that they’ll be subjected to a system where they must respect those other parties, the ones that make up a third of the vote?
Their hands must be forced.
The first step to doing so is to recognize and correct the fact that there is too large of a disconnect between our house of commons and the average voter. Make no mistake that the democratic institutions in Canada do belong to us, and shrugging them off as tainted by partisanship and politics-as-usual is merely a way for us to pass the blame.
The next step is to accept that there is no immediate answer to the myriad of dizzyingly frustrating questions, but there are points of departure available to us. A good start would be the anti-prorogation rally on Jan. 23 at Province House. The real question is: What must we ask when we get there?
We cannot afford to let parliament resume only to allow red-faced politicians to pass us over in favour of the petty squabbling that has marked the once-lauded lower chamber.
No, we must demand a voice in the House of Commons instead of timidly knocking on the door.
Recent Comments