Party Whip – Outdated, Non-Democratic

Tags

bully, bullying, Canada, Canadian, constituents, democracy, discipline, enforcer, legislature, partisan politics, party whip, political party, politician, representative, trust, undemocratic, vote, whip

Having a “Party Whip” is an archaic, outdated and undemocratic practice in any modern legislature. The party whip amounts to bullying the party members and does not allow for the freedom of representation of their respective constituents.

From Wikipedia:
“A whip is an official in a political party whose primary purpose is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. Whips are a party’s “enforcers”, who typically offer inducements and threaten punishments for party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party policy. A whip’s role is also to ensure that the elected representatives of their party are in attendance when important votes are taken. The usage comes from the hunting term “whipping in”, i.e. preventing hounds from wandering away from the pack.”

It is very obvious that a political party which finds the necessity to “Whip” their members into “obedience” lacks confidence that the position the party has taken on the legislation at hand is right and proper. Is it not obvious that waffling amongst the members quite likely means that the position taken is not the favored position and therefore requires more debate to get it right?

Any legislation, any motion, that cannot stand against a free democratic vote does not warrant passage.

There is only one reason that makes the party whip a necessity, Partisan Politics.

• It is Partisan Politics that leads to second rate legislation and Canada certainly has had it’s fill of that.
• It is Partisan Politics that leads to mistrust in politicians and Parliament as a whole. A recent Ekos Research poll finds that, “a mere 10 per cent of Canadians trust politicians”.
• It is Partisan Politics that leads to voter apathy and low voter turn out for elections. IPolitics states “disingenuous politicians trolling for votes that have turned people off”.
• It is Partisan Politics that leads to political scandal. “Canadians are becoming very skeptical about our political system’s integrity.”
• It is Partisan Politics that leads to misuse of the public purse. “… more politicians are being criminally charged or treating themselves lavishly at the public’s expense.” Read more…

Since patriotism emphasizes the regime, regimes that are weak or illegitimate struggle to imbue their members with patriotism and therefore resort to authoritarian and disciplinary practices. The Party Whip is one of those authoritarian and disciplinary practices which identify a weak or illegitimate regime and displays distrust and paranoia.

Freedom and Equality are the hallmarks of Advanced Democracies along with and a belief in liberty, political competition, and participation. The practice of having to “Whip” followers into party discipline is directly contrary to liberty, political competition, and participation. Where liberty is curbed, democracy is trampled.

Carl Marx described a utopian state. “The party structure would resemble a state—general secretary as the executive, a Politburo as the cabinet, the Central Committee as the legislature, and local cells of supporters —but these institutions merely approve whatever party leadership desired.” Notice the similarities?

It is hard to believe that in 2013, what with all the publicity against and millions of dollars and countless hours spent on the prevention of bullying, political parties would still have bullying as official party policy. Now does that make sense? After countless campaigns to identify and curb the bully, some even initiated by governments themselves, (how two faced is that Stephen and Laureen) and yet our elected representatives, who should be the most prominant and socially correct members of Canadian society, still, openly and unashamedly endorse and practice bullying in the workplace.

What is even more detrimental to democracy and good government is that the senior members have “Honorable” before their names. Sorry, to be addressed as Honorable, first you have to deserve the title.

A rather telling statement from Norton College: Nondemocratic Regimes

“In highly unequal societies, those who monopolize economic power may monopolize political power. This may because elites are less willing to share power when they fear losing their economic opportunities. Some argue that countries with abundant natural resources (such as oil or minerals) have a barrier to modernization because wealth is concentrated among elites who control those resources. Also, since natural resources are not portable, those in power know that should they give up power, they will not be able to take these assets with them.”

Says a lot to why the Conservatives under Stephen Harper are systematically digressing Canada socially and democratically.

A Party Whip is an instrument of torture in the hands of a Mistress in clandestine, aberrant sexual practices. Let’s not go there.

Advertisements

The Mandate to Govern

Tags

cabinet minister, caucus, councillors, democracy, duty, elected, election, electorate, fiduciary, Governor General, Human Rights, imperative mandate, judge, law, Lieutenant Governor, mandate, mayor, Parliament, party whip, political party, Premier, Prime Minister, reeve, representative, Senate, servant, vote

The Mandate to Govern in actuality is a mandate to serve.

The most important part or main ingredient in all of Canada is the people. All of Government, from the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governors, the Prime Minister or Premiers, federal or provincial cabinet ministers, the Senate, judges, mayors, councillors or reeves, and all other government officials including the police forces, all are subservient to the collective authority of the people, the citizens of Canada. All elected personnel are paid by the public purse, and obtain whatever authority is granted to them only by the temporary warrant of the collective choice of the majority decision of the people of Canada by free election.

One very important aspect for all elected persons to consider and keep in mind at all times is that they are servants to the public good both individually and collectively and that the authority bestowed upon them is only temporary. Any decisions they make must be tempered in humility to that important fact. They must also remember that they are public servants with an absolute fiduciary obligation to Canada, the land and the peoples, their safety, security, health, prosperity and their good name and reputation including the future the continuing collective welfare of the Nation.

A mandate is the power or authority to act that voters give to those elected to public office.
In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.[Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is the central idea of representative democracy.
Governments who introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign do not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.
Elections with a large margin of victory give the newly elected government or elected official an implicit mandate to put into effect certain policies.

A ‘mandate’ can mean a parliamentary seat won in an election or the electoral victory itself. A “free representational mandate” which is characteristic of a “deliberative assembly” guided by the general good and which guarantees the freedom of speech, which is key to the effective working of parliament, has true representativeness and hence democracy. A mandate which is bound to the wishes of the electorate is an imperative mandate.

Political parties have put in place mechanisms to ensure that “their” members of parliament vote along party lines. Party whips, party caucuses or political party groups exist in almost all parliaments and aim at ensuring party discipline. This is certainly necessary to some extent, as otherwise political parties would be unable to fulfil their vital function of policy formulation. But, we need ask, “Does the policy of party discipline diminish the “free” mandate granted individual representatives?”

The question is, to what extent is the consequence for a member of parliament if he/she fails to vote along party lines, criticizes the party hierarchy or policy or does not agree with party decisions? Should political parties, beyond party sanctions, be able to influence whether or not a member of parliament remains a member of the party? If political parties govern the political “conscience” of elected representatives then elected representatives no longer have a free mandate but an imperative mandate. An imperative mandate, whereby members of parliament are bound by instructions from their political parties or the electorate, is the bastardized form of democracy practiced in the former communist States, Russia and China where the freedom of parliamentary deputies has been severely limited.

If Canada is to remain a with imperative mandate, which seems what political parties desire, than the policies to be enacted must be clearly presented to the electorate prior to the election in order for the government to have a democratic mandate in accordance with concretely transmitted preference by their electors. Vague references as to policy just does not lead to proper democracy. Governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign do not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.

This from: IPU eBULLETIN –> ISSUE No.19 –> ARTICLE 5
“The IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians has watched with growing concern as more and more majority parties propose and vote laws resulting in the loss of the parliamentary mandate if a member is expelled from the party, resigns from it, crosses the floor or even does not follow party directives. These laws in fact introduce an imperative mandate and, along with it, political party control over parliament. The negative impact this has on the capacity of parliaments to exercise effective oversight is not difficult to demonstrate, as parliamentarians start to refrain from asking questions or criticizing for fear of losing their mandate. It is also detrimental to the representativeness of parliament, as the electorate’s criticisms and views may not be expressed in parliament.”