Rethinking Political Parties Discussion Paper Graham Fox November 2005
Rethinking Political Parties November 2005
THE PUBLIC POLICY FORUM The Public Policy Forum is an independent, not-for-profit organization aimed at improving the quality of government in Canada through better dialogue between the public, private and voluntary sectors. The Forum's members, drawn from businesses, federal, and provincial governments, the voluntary sector and the labour movement, share a common belief that an efficient and effective public service is a key element in ensuring our quality of life and global competitive position. Established in 1987, the Public Policy Forum has gained a reputation as a trusted, neutral facilitator, capable of bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in productive dialogue. Its research program provides a neutral base to inform collective decision making. By promoting more information sharing and greater linkages between governments and other sectors, the Public Policy Forum ensures that Canada's future directions become more dynamic, coordinated and responsive to the challenges and opportunities that lie before us. www.ppforum.ca
THE CROSSING BOUNDARIES NATIONAL COUNCIL The Crossing Boundaries National Council is a not-for-profit national forum that has been formed to help Canadian governments prepare for the information age by fostering debate and action on the special challenges it poses for them in the areas of service delivery, information sharing, governance and accountability. CBNC is made up of approximately 45 members, including senior public servants and elected representatives from each of the 10 provinces and the federal government, as well as representatives from territorial and municipal governments and the Aboriginal community. www.crossingboundaries.ca
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Graham Fox is Vice President at the Public Policy Forum. His primary research interests are democratic renewal, and the transformation of government and governance. Graham brings to the Forum senior-level experience in the fields of politics and public policy. He is a former director of the KTA Centre for Collaborative Government and the Institute for Research on Public Policy, and a former Chief of Staff to the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is the result of a collaborative effort by the Public Policy Forum and the Crossing Boundaries National Council. It is part of an ongoing research and consultation project on the future of political parties in Canada. PPF and CBNC would like to thank Elections Canada for their generous support for this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 A WORD ABOUT THE PROCESS .......................................................................................... 2 THE STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN 2005 – HOW DID WE GET HERE? ...................... 2 THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES .................................................................................... 5 THE CHALLENGES FOR POLITICAL PARTIES .................................................................... 7 Ideas ................................................................................................................................ 7 Brokerage........................................................................................................................ 9 THE FORCES TO BE RECKONED WITH ............................................................................ 10 Interest Groups.............................................................................................................. 10 Government................................................................................................................... 11 The Leader .................................................................................................................... 11 Money ........................................................................................................................... 12 THE FUTURE OF POLITICAL PARTIES .............................................................................. 14 Parties and the Democratic Renewal Agenda............................................................... 14 Parties as Local Institutions .......................................................................................... 15 Parties as Modern Institutions....................................................................................... 15 CONCLUSION – BECOMING RELEVANT AGAIN ............................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWEES........................................................................................... 18
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
1
Introduction Essential. In decline. Empty shells. Cheap at twice the price. These are some of the words used to describe the state of political parties in Canada by those who know them best: the party insiders. Over the last decade, democratic renewal has become a central theme in Canadian political discourse. Whether it is falling voter turnout, growing public cynicism vis-à-vis political leaders, changing our electoral system or finding more meaningful ways of engaging citizens in public debate, the desire to reinvigorate our democracy has captured the attention of legislators from across Canada and at all levels of government. Interestingly, while issues such as parliamentary reform, electoral reform and deliberative democracy have been the subject of a great deal of academic and political interest, much less focus has been placed on the state of political parties in Canada and their role in a democratic system in transformation. Yet, there is much to compel decision-makers who are concerned with the state of democracy to pay closer attention to parties. For instance, the possibility – however remote – of changing the manner in which legislators are elected raises the issue of the impact of this reform on the nature of parties and the role they play in the system. Moreover, the growing concern with the under-representation of women, young people and New Canadians also raises the specific question of the role parties can or should play in ensuring a more accurate reflection of society in institutions. From a governance perspective, the financing of political parties through an annual allowance drawn from the public purse, which now exists in three provinces and at the federal level, certainly gives citizens and public authorities a stake in the comportment of parties and suggest that new public accountability relationships could be imagined in exchange for such financing. These concerns have also been highlighted by recent headlines about potential abuses of mass membership provisions, which raise not only questions regarding the role but also the internal governance arrangements of what are supposed to be public institutions. Finally, the rise of interest groups and alternative means of political expression raises the issue of our parties’ ability to articulate interests, lead the debate on ideas and aggregate them into a coherent vision for the country. Put simply, these phenomena raise questions about the relevance of parties in a 21st Century democracy.
2
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
A Word about the Process This discussion paper aims to fill some of that knowledge gap and spark a debate on the role and future of parties in Canada. The paper is based on a series of interviews conducted between August and October 2005 with current and former officials from political parties of all stripes, at the federal and provincial levels and from all regions.1 The richness and diversity of views included in this paper comes from the willingness of all participants in the consultation to speak freely and honestly about political parties – for which we are most appreciative. However, responsibility for the findings and analysis included in this report remains that of its author. In most cases, individuals who took part in the interview process had political experience at both the federal and provincial levels. When needed, a distinction is made as to whether the observation being made refers specifically to one or the other of the two arenas, but in most cases, the comments are general in nature and can apply to either federal or provincial parties. The discussion paper is the result of the first phase of a multi-phase research and consultation project conducted jointly by the Public Policy Forum (PPF) and the Crossing Boundaries National Council (CBNC), with the support of Elections Canada. In the coming months, the consultation will be broadened to the other actors in the democratic system – interest groups, public servants, politicians, analysts, journalists and citizens themselves – to get their views and reactions to the aggregated views of parties about themselves. This upcoming consultation phase will include interviews, an online consultation and a roundtable session, and will lead to a formal report and a national symposium on these issues in the spring of 2006.
The State of Political Parties in 2005 – How Did We Get Here? If there is agreement among party operatives that all is not well in our democracy and that there is a growing disconnect between parties and citizens, there is no consensus across the interviews as to the cause of this state of affairs. Some participants flatly reject the notion that political parties are in a state of decline, or that the situation in 2005 is substantively worse than it has been in the past. Rather, the relevance of parties in the eyes of citizens was described as being more cyclical than linear, and that most parties today simply find themselves in the low ebb of that cycle. In this view, the perceived relevance of a party is affected by the relative importance of that party’s core policy strengths at any given time, and its competitiveness for office. Members’ interest in party affairs grows and declines in correlation with the convergence of these two factors. Proponents of this view also note that interest in parties rises when elections become competitive and there is something at stake. 1
Please note that, at the federal level, an invitation to participate in the interview process was extended to all twelve political parties registered with Elections Canada.
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
3
In at least one respect, however, interviewees did note that the challenge parties face is different in 2005 than it might have been in decades past. In a world in which the perception of politics as a noble calling has been severely diminished, how does a party attract the best and the brightest to serve? In contrast, the majority of those interviewed acknowledge that political parties have been in a general state of decline for some time. While they retain some capacity to bring people into the democratic system and – by and large – do elections well, their capacity to be more than electoral machines has severely declined. Referring specifically to federal parties, some went as far as to argue that they have constructed a ‘potemkin village’ of sorts in the theatre of the nation’s capital but, that, outside Ottawa, the presence of parties is illusory. While they may project an image of national organizations with reach into every community and a capacity to generate ideas, prepare candidates for office, and run elections, in reality, most parties have little capacity to sustain their organizations much beyond the central office. In the words of one participant, “parties today are weak, hollow shells – unable to discharge their democratic obligation to their supporters or the electorate.” So how did they get there? How do party officials explain the current state of their organizations? According to some participants, parties have gone through two phases of development in the postwar period. Initially conceived of as private clubs or networks whose sole purpose was to achieve and exercise power, the model of political parties in the 1960s and 1970s evolved to become more democratic. The focus remained on elections (achieving power), but the purpose was more broadly based and the drive behind it more ‘popular.’ The internal structures and processes were also democratized to allow for a greater involvement of those citizens who choose to become members in party affairs. Leadership contests, party conventions and policy meetings became the central focus of members’ activities. Thus, members were given a voice in the direction of their party. Over time, however, this first impetus to open up parties proved insufficient. In the 1990s, the post-Meech backlash against elite-driven brokerage politics and decisionmaking, the electoral collapse of the federal Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties and the rise of Reform led many party executives to go even further – to reconsider the role of individual members in party affairs. As “grassroots” became the buzz word of party governance, many parties adopted mass membership provisions for policy development processes, the election of party officers, and leadership selection. Echoing calls for client-centred service in business and a more citizen-centred approach to governing, parties sought to put the member back at the centre of party governance. These changes were an admission by the party leadership that it had lost touch with its membership base and citizens, and that it needed to reconnect with individuals if it were to survive.
4
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
If the intentions behind these changes were noble, there is widespread acknowledgement today that the mass membership experiment has had a number of unintended consequences for parties, and has probably created almost as many problems as it has solved. Parties misunderstood democratization and mistook democratic engagement for the act of casting a ballot. Mass membership certainly allowed a number of Canadians who wanted to access the democratic system to do so, but the way in which parties have operated that system has led to a number of abuses that cannot be overlooked. One interviewee referred to this phenomenon as the ‘Canadian Idolization of politics’ – a system in which everyone can tune in, watch a bit of the show, vote for the leadership candidate of their choice, and hang up the phone (or shut down their browser), never to be heard from again. “Most parties today are trying to dig themselves out of that hole. Instant membership, instant leaders, instant democracy. This is indeed a worrying trend for anyone who values a rigorous exchange on competing visions.” Interestingly, the evolution in parties’ views of membership activities mirrors the evolution in public discourse on citizen engagement in democracy. If the debate in the 1990s was focused on direct democracy initiatives such as an increased use of petitions, referenda and recall, it eventually moved to deliberative democracy, which aims to inform the public and capture its considered view on an issue as opposed to a quick answer. In the same period, parties have gone through a similar process. If greater democracy in the 1990s meant giving a great number of people a more direct say – usually a vote – in party decisions, most participants in this consultation process spoke of the need to allow for members to engage each other in meaningful exchanges on ideas and direction. In many interviews, that meant rediscovering the party conference and giving members the opportunity to come to understand each other and make decisions collectively, not in the isolation of the voting booth or on the home computer. Clearly, choices have to be made about the place of members in parties and the nature of parties themselves. Thus, political parties in Canada are at a crossroads. At a time when democratic renewal is of concern to a growing number of citizens, and is the focus of an increasing number of government initiatives, party insiders themselves paint a troubling picture of state of parties and refer to the unprecedented irrelevance of parties in the eyes of the public. Put simply, they have ceased to be meaningful meeting places for citizens who want to take part in the democratic process. While some participants question whether there has ever been a golden age of party democracy, the vast majority agree that parties are not now meeting the expectations of citizens: • They are not the vehicles for bold new policy ideas; • They do not have strong roots in the community; • They do not empower their members to act politically; • They have little identity beyond that of their leader; and, • They do not lead on the issues of our time.
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
5
Certainly, part of the responsibility lies with parties themselves. But they are also caught in a changing environment that may or may not encourage the growth of parties as vehicles for political participation: • Citizens have less time to consider evermore complex policy choices; • Citizens are cynical about politics, and expect little if anything of parties; • Citizens have more choice when it comes to being politically active; • The prism for public debate is issues, not parties – the question is usually one of competence, not ideology; and, • Public spaces in general are shrinking. Nevertheless, unless Canadians opt for a democratic system that is radically different from the current one, parties will continue to play a central role in how we do democracy. Under the current, single-member plurality electoral system, as well as in any PR model, political parties are an important if not the only means through which an individual can gain a seat in the legislature or Parliament. They are the basis on which we separate members of the government from those of the opposition.2 They are the cornerstone of our system.
The Role of Political Parties Any serious attempt at reinvigorating political parties must begin with a definition of what we expect parties to do. What do we want out of these institutions? As a result of an amendment to the Canada Elections Act that received Royal Assent in May 2004, political parties – at least for the purposes of registration with Elections Canada – are defined as “an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election.”3 For most interviewees, a party’s raison d’être is electoral choice: citizens want to choose between coherent political options, and expect parties to present them with that choice. Thus, a party’s main function must be to provide a vehicle for those with a common vision to establish a structure and a process to give voice – and effect – to that vision. Integrated into this definition are the notions of brokerage, policy formulation, and getting candidates elected to public office. These are the means by which parties give voice and effect to the choice they present to the citizenry. These are the characteristics that differentiate parties from other actors in the democratic system. Of course, the challenge for parties is to strike the needed balance between these roles, which often compete for priority and resources.
2 3
The exceptions, of course, are the territorial assemblies, who opt for a consensus form of government. http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=part00&dir=leg/fel/cea&lang=e&textonly=false
6
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
To varying degrees, all interviewees note the critical importance of ideas in differentiating themselves from the others, and providing choice. But as a nuance, most party insiders draw a difference between ideas as presented by an interest group and the comprehensive policy programs of political parties. More than interest articulation, the role of parties is one of interest aggregation. In this view, parties do not necessarily need to generate new ideas themselves, but they must be the clearinghouse for them – a means by which ideas are sorted, prioritized and made consistent with one another. Thus, at least in the eyes of parties, brokerage trumps policy. On the other side of the ledger is the electoral imperative. While there were some differences of opinion between larger and smaller parties as to the priority they should assign to the task of getting candidates elected, it is without question a central concern for all. In some ways, this electoral role supports the policy/brokerage roles in that elected representatives are the principal means by which parties enact their platforms. On the other hand, it dilutes the policy/brokerage functions because of the drain electoral concerns are on a party’s resources, both human and financial. In fact, one interviewee argued that this tension leads to a great divide between the reasons for which citizens joined political parties and what parties actually do. Individuals become members because they feel strongly about an issue, but when they attend their first meeting, they quickly realize that most of the agenda is about something else. The motivator is ideas, but all too often the purpose is organization. Supporting the triumvirate of policy, brokerage and election were two other functions that came up in a number of interviews: the integration of individuals into the democratic mainstream, and preparation for holding office. In terms of bringing individuals into the political process, many insiders again refer to the notion of ‘giving voice.’ For smaller parties, this function sometimes receives an even higher priority than getting candidates elected, especially when it comes to individuals who would otherwise be marginalized. This role is seen as something parties are uniquely positioned to do and, for parties across the spectrum, is identified as a central role for them. In the words of one interviewee, “the role of parties is to ensure all individuals have an opportunity to pull a chair up to the table – that is the way to have a real debate.” Of course, selecting candidates, designing a platform around which they can rally, and providing the support needed to get them elected is one thing. Governing is quite another. Interestingly, many insiders refer to ‘preparing for government’ as another, emerging function of parties. The growing complexity of the machinery of government, and the growing list of parties who expend enormous amounts of political capital during their first 18 months in office figuring things out, have combined to make training those candidates who are likely to take their seat in the legislature a new challenge for party structures. Candidate colleges have existed for some time, but MP or MLA colleges are now also becoming the norm. Referring to the substantial exchange and internship programs of American political parties, many believe Canadian parties should invest more in training the political leadership of tomorrow, and ensuring our future leaders had
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
7
a better sense of government. Put simply, parties have to ensure they are ready to govern. In sum, according to the insiders, the role of political parties in our democratic system is to provide meaningful electoral choice for citizens by: • Generating or collecting ideas and turning them into a coherent, comprehensive political platform; • Getting their candidates elected to public office to implement that platform; • Encouraging public debate on policy options by giving voice to citizens; and • Ensuring they are ready to govern when and if they are called upon to do so.
The Challenges for Political Parties If the role of parties is indeed the one outlined above, it is clear that they are falling short of the mark. For starters, citizens neither see parties as generators of ideas or enablers of democratic participation. Few Canadians have a high regard for party politics, and fewer still become members. And, as one interviewee put it, that cynicism is arguably rational. Unlike the period between the early 1960s and the early 1990s, during which a number of bold, transformative initiatives were launched by governments, public achievements in the last decade or so have been few and far between. Many participants commented on parties’ inability to lead, and rediscovering that ability could hold the key to reinvigorating parties. New ideas may well be the best defence against public cynicism, and parties should play a lead role in defining what we want those public achievements to be in the next decade. Clearly, the onus is on parties to make the case for themselves, and the hill to climb is a steep one. Ideas Over the course of the interview process, everyone seemed to agree that the generation of ideas and the development of policy positions need to be moved up a party’s priority chain. However, there is little consensus as to how that might happen, or what form that would take. When asked about the policy function of parties, many interviewees spoke almost nostalgically about the vigorous debates over ideas that had defined their party for a generation. Many recalled in great detail the clashes on the floor of a policy convention, or in caucus, that led to a party’s position on a critical issue. Most agreed that, during elections in which they were successful, a significant portion of that success was due to the party having an idea around which citizens could rally. Today, little of that tradition survives. Insiders note the number of barriers that exist to creating a robust policy process: lack of resources, expertise, competition from other functions that are considered more urgent. Parties have forgotten the fundamental role policy development should play in their affairs, but in many ways that is a consequence of there being no incentive, and no reward, for parties who value ideas.
8
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
Ironically, many interviewees spoke of the very real, practical benefits a policy process can bring to the party membership. A compelling platform can certainly attract electoral support, but a compelling process can in itself be of benefit to a party’s democratic life. Members who are engaged in these debates, and who see their contribution in the final platform document, have a great deal more ownership in the party and in its success. The notion that decisions are made by those who show up can be a tremendous motivator for members to take part in party meetings when there is a real issue at stake and a genuine commitment by the leadership to let the members decide. Across parties, the trouble with policy development as a priority function is that, while it may be critically important, it is rarely urgent. It is therefore difficult to ensure parties keep their eye on the policy ball. As a result, the idea of finding a way to compel parties to focus on policy was seen by the majority of interviewees as an attractive one. If incentives could be built in to the system to ensure a return on their investment, they should be explored. When asked about possible models, many interviewees first refer to the policy foundations political parties in other western liberal democracies have created – most notably the Konrad Adenauer and the Friedrich Ebert foundations in Germany. Many agree that, for policy to be done well and with the longer term in mind, it likely has to be shielded from the immediate electoral concerns of parties. Creating an arm’s length foundation would allow parties more freedom to think without concern for an idea’s immediate impact on party standings in the polls or the perception of the leader. Others fear the foundation model is insufficiently independent from the party to be truly free-thinking. Some even go as far as to paint a picture of the foundation as a retirement resort for former leaders and party elders – hardly a recipe for fresh ideas and risk taking. These interviewees argue that, with the available technology to link members and citizens and reach out across the country, the time might be right to think creatively about policy development and come up with a process that hasn’t yet been tried. No specific model was proposed, but many insiders allude to mixing online discussions, local meetings, national conferences and deliberative workbook processes. Of course, none of these proposals necessary excludes the foundations model, but they all push the boundaries of how we might conceive of the foundation’s structures and processes. It should be noted that, for the most part, those who disagree with the idea of compelling parties to pay attention to ideas do so on the grounds that parties themselves should decide to pursue that on its own merit – that a focus on policy should remain a distinguishing feature of parties in relation to the others. In this view, parties who did policy well would eventually be rewarded at the ballot box, and that should be the only necessary return on that investment. Whether parties eventually explore the idea of creating policy foundations, or whether they opt for another model, the important feature of this new process would have to be its openness and transparency to the public. La saison des idées, as one Quebec party refers
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
9
to it, must happen in full view of citizens. The challenge, of course, is for parties to design a process that is a public one, but also one that allows for ideas to be proposed, debated and adopted or rejected without binding parties to the first draft. Otherwise, no one will ever dare speak an idea that hasn’t even been spoken before. Brokerage Almost more critical than the ideas themselves is a party’s ability to turn them into a coherent platform. In fact, many interviewees point to this brokerage, or interest aggregation, function as being the one function that distinguishes parties from other policy actors. At least in the current system, political parties are supposed to be the ‘grand aggregators’ or, as Robert Stanfield put it, “the crucibles of consensus.” In the words of one participant, “it’s what makes a party a party.” Or, perhaps, it is what once made a party a party. Most participants agree they have even lost their ability to be effective brokers – both within their institution and with likeminded groups of all kinds. More often, policy decisions are made on a winner-take-all basis, with the point of view that has the most delegates on its side getting its way – period. While no one is suggesting this majoritarian take on policy resolutions should be abandoned outright (it is, after all, a legitimate democratic principle), they did express some concern about its impact on a party’s long-term ability to be competitive. The problem is that not one party is strong in all the regions in which it must run for office, and not one of them is strong on all the issues on which it must have a position. In a winner-take-all system, therefore, the decisions parties make on the floor of the convention tend to reinforce their biases, be they regional or issue-based. Parties that have been weakened by the splintering of their natural constituencies, or prolonged stays on the opposition benches are especially vulnerable to this trend. A similar situation occurs in the relationship parties have with other actors in the democratic system, such as social movements, interest groups and activist networks. Many party insiders note the ground parties have lost to these organizations in their competition for the attention of like-minded citizens with a desire to engage politically. Rather than fight to regain the lost ground, however, many interviewees suggest parties would do well to redefine their relationship with these groups by staking out complementary but separate functions and casting themselves in the role of aggregator. Thus, looking to the future, many insiders think it would be in the interest of parties that they seek news ways of ‘negotiating’ common positions that would, as a result, have the support of larger segments of their membership and third-party endorsement. It should also be noted that the benefits of aggregation go far beyond the platform. The process of negotiation inherent in making these choices requires participants to explain
10 RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES their preferences to others and gain their agreement. For a political party, it is the means by which it succeeds in bringing divergent groups together in the common interest. The benefits to the system are therefore at least as much about social cohesion as they are about policy platforms.
The Forces to be Reckoned With Interest Groups The rise of interest groups is of great concern to many who took part in this consultation exercise. There is no question interest groups of all kinds have been gaining influence in political debate. Interestingly, their appeal is seen as being both a cause and a consequence of the weakening of political parties. In comparison with parties, the mission of interest groups is simpler and more straightforward. Able to choose those issues on which they will engage the public, these groups do not have to fear a dilution of their message, or question the commitment of their members and supporters to those issues. For instance, in contrast to the members of the New Democratic Party, who may join because of their concerns for the environment, health care or the war in Iraq, there is no question as to why someone would join Amnesty International. Moreover, Greenpeace does not need to have a policy on the role of the private sector in health care, and the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation will not be asked about its views on the future of NATO. It is understandable, therefore, that parties see interest groups as competitors for the attention of citizens, financial resources and thought leadership on their core issues. However, most interviewees agree it would be a mistake to attempt to reclaim (as some parties sometimes do) the ground parties feel they have lost to organized interests. Success, in their view, is unlikely and undesirable. Rather, parties should be looking to forge new relationships with organized interests, giving voice to their concerns and a means by which to effect change and create linkages with government. By definition, interest groups cannot concern themselves with the whole of public space – and cannot, therefore, have a holistic view of the policy agenda. Parties, on the other hand, have that as a core responsibility. One participant suggested that parties could usefully ally themselves with organized interests and depend on them to create public spaces for debate on its behalf. In return, once in government, parties could give legislative effect to those political ideas. In fact, some referred quite positively to experiments within their own parties as to how to grant organized interests some measure of status at party meetings while remaining independent entities.
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
11
Government If the goal of parties (or, at least, most of them) is to form a government, there is a great irony in the tensions that arise when parties succeed in forming one. Most participants agree that, in opposition, parties gain strength when they become competitive for office. However, it seems equally true that, once in office, the party begins to suffer a decline in influence and capacity. The problem for parties is twofold: first, political parties do not know enough about the workings of the machinery of government to understand how to relate to it; and secondly, parties do not have a strong enough identity that is separate from that of their leaderturned-Premier or Prime Minister. With regards to government, many insiders at the federal and provincial level note how lost parties are when they first cross over to the government side of the Chamber. Few candidates who become legislators know enough about the rules governing their legislature or the bureaucracy to be an effective counterweight to them. The same is true of the senior ranks of the party central office, who all of a sudden have to compete with government for influence. As a case in point, many interviewees with federal experience noted the high turnover rate of MPs from election to election and referred specifically to the experience of the last 12 years, during which most parties represented in the Commons had to contend with caucuses and party executives with little knowledge of and experience with government and Parliament. In their view, the system didn’t work as it should have because the politicians involved had little collective expertise on how things were supposed to work. As a result, many interviewees argued that preparation for government must become a central purpose of parties. The Leader A second concern to participants in this consultation is the power the leader has over the party institution. Today, parties are so closely managed by the leader’s entourage that debate is stifled and creativity all but eliminated. To be successful in the long term, parties must have an identity and a presence that is independent from that of their leader. As one interviewer asked, “where are the Iona Campagnolos and Dalton Camps of today? Being a party executive used to mean something – you had a role to play and responsibilities – what happened?” Part of the rational for parties to rediscover their independent voice, according to many interviewees, is the need for them to find a way to allow for constructive dissent. The close ties between party and leader today mean that the leader will be saddled with whatever points of view are expressed by members of the party. In rethinking their structures and processes, whether it concerns policy or other matters, parties would do well to find a way for dissent to be expressed within the tent while ensuring a certain distance between the expression of that dissent and the leader of the day.
12 RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES Money Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money! - Danny DeVito as Mickey Bergman in David Mamet’s “Heist” (2001) Political parties are no exception to this rule, and the interviews conducted over the course of this consultation showed how present the issue of money is on the mind of party insiders. Winning takes money. Raising it – and accounting for it once it has made its way into party coffers – requires significant resources. Ideally, providing choice through policy and winning elections would be the drivers of party activity, but the exigencies of the system mean that a vast majority of effort and resources go the fundraising and its auxiliary activities. In fact, many interviewees spoke of a fundamental disconnect between what a party identifies as a priority and what it is compelled to do with limited resources. But if it takes money to do politics, party insiders also acknowledge the problem of money in politics – or, at least, the perception of the role of money in politics. There is no question that Canadians are concerned about the influence of deep pockets over public policy and government decisions. Over the years, polls have consistently shown that citizens worry that those who show parties their generosity might be getting something in return. Over the course of the interviews, many referred explicitly to the impact of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry on the perception of contributors to political parties and those who accept their donations. But if most acknowledge this is a very real problem for parties, there is little agreement on the prescription. At the federal level (the most recent jurisdiction to amend its political financing laws), new regulations contained in Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), which became law on January 1, 2004, extends a political party’s disclosure requirements to riding associations, leadership campaigns and nomination contests for registered parties; caps corporate and union donations for electoral district associations, candidates for nomination and candidates for election at $1000 (corporate and union donations to national parties or leadership candidates are prohibited); limits donations from individuals; and, adds reporting requirements to Elections Canada. Two-and-a-half years after C-24 received Royal Assent, the new law remains fundamentally controversial. There is no consensus on the desirability or impact of these legislative changes. In fact, interviewees could only agree on one thing when it comes to C-24: the new law has definitely had a number of important consequences for parties – not all of them intended.
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
13
To be sure, a sizable minority of those interviewed support the changes. They believe the principle of public financing to be noble and necessary, despite what they see as flaws in the detail of its current application. They argue, for instance, that the compliance requirements and the bureaucratic burden of the reporting procedures are too onerous on organizations that remain essentially volunteer ones – even for those with a professional central office. Some add that C-24 has made politics more expensive. They argue it is leading to the professionalization of a number of party functions dealing with compliance, which drives up costs both at the national level and in the riding. In addition, the law makes fundraising more difficult because of the caps on what can be raised outside the base funding and the perceived near-impossibility of ever raising the financial return of each vote received. What governing political party, they ask, would ever dare raise the $1.75 per vote received at the risk of significant public backlash? As a result, they conclude, political parties find themselves dealing with activities that are becoming more expensive with base funding that is now a diminishing asset. Other interviewees denounce C-24 as unnecessary government regulation and a limit on democratic expression. Some participants describe the law as a confirmation to all citizens that politics is dirty. They argue it relieves corporate Canada and the union movement of their democratic duties and provides one more layer of insulating between politics and citizens. In the words of one participant, “C-24 causes parties to not need people.” Others argue public financing was creating a culture of dependency and that parties would be better off if the state adopted a ‘tough love’ approach by forcing them to earn their revenues by tying them to performance in the marketplace of ideas. Money follows momentum, which follows message. In this view, tighter disclosure and transparency requirements would have had the desired impact of curbing the distortion of politics by money, while avoiding some of the consequences of C-24. If there is disagreement among the larger parties about C-24, it was difficult to find any support for the law among representatives of the smaller parties. While some of them certainly support the principle, all deplore the threshold for funding as being an institutional barrier for new parties designed to sustain the status quo. As an alternative, one participant suggested that, rather than fund political parties directly, the state should fund the system and let individual parties fend for themselves. Looking to the future, most insiders agreed that the compliance burden – especially on riding associations – should be a priority for review in the short term. They also warned against what they perceived to be legislative and regulatory silence on the issue of ‘political action committees.’ In their reading of the law, there is little to stop a group of individuals from launching an organization with the ability to raise funds that would otherwise be off limits to parties and then providing support to those parties. A public debate is therefore needed on whether we want to allow PACs, and if the answer is yes, how they, too, should be regulated.
14 RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES When asked about other possible additions or reforms to the law, which would involve directing certain portions of public financing to certain activities deemed desirable (policy development, outreach, youth involvement) most interviewees spoke strongly against such provisions. In their view, such activities should remain the prerogative of parties themselves and should be launched on a party’s own initiative. If there is one light for political parties at the end of the financing tunnel, it is the law of diminishing returns when it comes to election spending. Some argue that, as political parties in the United States have recently discovered, a point is reached at which purchasing one more advertising spot doesn’t do much for the candidate. There is a saturation point. Using the Republican Party specifically as an example, some interviewees (not all of whom were from the Right) marvelled at the GOP’s success in rediscovering volunteerism. One participant went as far as to suggest that President Bush’s success in mobilizing his party’s base is in some ways evidence against the ‘Bowling Alone’ thesis. Of course, proponents of this view quickly add that, for federal parties in Canada to achieve similar breakthroughs in terms of engaging citizens, the law would also need to be amended to make it easier for individuals to volunteer their time and expertise.
The Future of Political Parties Where do political parties go from here? If their basic challenge is to provide meaningful electoral choice based on a compelling platform, how do they regain the voice needed to fulfill that responsibility to the democratic system? How do they reclaim the thought leadership some say they have lost to professional political consultants, bureaucrats, interest groups, lobbyists and the media? Parties and the Democratic Renewal Agenda Many party insiders began their interviews by remarking on the irrelevance of political parties in Canadian democratic life. They retain their role as electoral machines, but beyond that, they barely register on citizens’ radar screens. A few participants used the democratic renewal agenda as a case in point. Across the country, governments everywhere are launching initiatives of all kinds to engage Canadians on renewing our democratic system. Parties should be leading this national discussion, but in their opinion, they have little to add to what should be a debate of critical importance to them. Looking ahead, political parties must reacquaint themselves with the basics of democracy. Far from the trappings of advertising campaigns, media wars and the campaign plane, our parties need to rediscover their roots in the community and engage in personal, retail politics. As one participant put it, “it’s time to go local or go home.”
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
15
Parties as Local Institutions On this issue, most interviewees agree: outside the central office, parties – at least the established ones – have little or no local life anymore. The leader now runs the show, usually from the capital, and the pollster has replaced the member as the eyes and ears of the party in the community. Ironically, despite the phenomenal advances in transportation and information and communications technologies, many feel the capital city is farther away today than it once was. Many interviewees with a long history of involvement in their party insist it was not always thus. Election to the riding association executive used to mean something. Community leaders once took pride in letting their name stand for the right to represent their colleagues at the convention. Delegateships to national meetings were valued. The community felt it was connecting with the wider world. But the governance decisions of most political parties in the 1990s diminished the role of the riding association – and therefore of its members – in a party’s affairs. Anyone and everyone could join the party and shape its direction without ever shaking the hand of a fellow member or attending one meeting. While there is certainly value in preserving the more positive aspects of mass membership, there is no substitute for collective action at the local level. To be relevant ‘on the ground,’ members of political parties have to be put in closer proximity to each other at provincial or national gatherings, and then anchored into their community. Of course, parties who reconnected with communities in this way would also serve the broader purpose of reducing the distance between the government in the capital and the people – between decision-makers and citizens. On a positive note, the regulatory importance attributed to the riding association by the new financing laws may force parties to rediscover and invest in them to ensure they have the institutional strength and capacity to comply. Parties as Modern Institutions ‘Going local’ is certainly important. But according to party insiders, ‘going modern’ is an equally important institutional objective. Recent experiences combining mass membership provisions with local nomination contests and leadership races have highlighted the critical importance of a robust accountability regime for political parties. For instance, most interviewees acknowledge the dilemma of regulating memberships. On the one hand, everyone agrees that parties today must be open to all individuals who want to get involved. But on the other, that openness must be balanced with transparency with regards to how individuals become members and who pays for that membership. Interviewers acknowledged the particular problem of mass membership sales to communities of new Canadians. They recognize there are abuses in the system, and express a desire to curb them, but admit the fear of being labelled a racist often thwarts
16 RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES any attempt at reform. Membership provisions for local nomination processes and leadership contests have to be fundamentally redesigned – in the words of one participant, “they’re just asking for excesses.” Interestingly, many insiders pointed to internal processes underway within their own party to review such provisions and recommend changes that would ensure openness, allow the party to conduct successful outreach campaigns to new Canadians, and guarantee the legitimacy of the outcome by securing the process. Some suggested that parties adopt a delay between becoming a member and exercising your franchise. Others proposed a system of ‘graduated system’ of party memberships, which would grant an escalating number of rights to members over time – some right away, others after three or even six months in the party. To be vibrant in the long term, parties have to be ‘movements,’ not just institutions. That is how they will rediscover their vitality and regain their relevance. Parties have to speak to what citizens care about and what members want to act on. To do that well, parties first have to trust their members and give them a meaningful role to play in their activities. To paraphrase the old American Express slogan, ‘membership has to have its privileges’ and party structures must reflect that. Clearly, however, insiders strongly believe that, while it is important for parties to enhance the means by which they account for their actions to their members and to citizens, these are not areas in which they would welcome state regulation – beyond, perhaps, strictly defined compliance rules relating to due process.
Conclusion – Becoming Relevant Again Above all else, political parties must re-establish a meaningful connection with citizens. The system must rediscover, and make room for, what Preston Manning called “the common sense of the common people.” Today, few Canadians see parties as relevant vehicles for political action. More troublingly, partisan activity is now seen as base, and even essentially corrupt. All parties have a stake in changing the perception and the reality of that statement. The real casualty of the current state of parties is the devaluation of political activity in general. As one participant said, “meaning has been sucked out of politics and parties have a lot of responsibility in that.” The question, therefore, is how is meaning supposed to be brought back into politics? And what role – if any – will parties play in that rehabilitation of politics? In the next phase of this consultation, PPF and CBNC will be asking other actors in the democratic process to reflect on the observations insiders made about parties, their role and their future. If we were to redesign, or rethink, political parties as public institutions
RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
17
for a 21st century democracy, what would they look like? How would they be different from the institutions of today? Specifically: • Is the role of political parties, as defined in this discussion paper, the right one? Does it capture the essence of what we want political parties to do in our democracy? • What should the relationship be between parties and other actors in the democratic process? • With regards to the internal structures and processes of parties, how can these institutions be modernized to make them more effective? To what extent should these types of reforms come from within, and to what extent does the public have a say in these matters? • How should parties approach policy development in the future? Is the idea of creating arm’s length policy foundations appealing? What might such an organization look like? Are there other models? Of course, reinventing themselves will not be easy. But, in addition to the ideas outlined above, there are a few opportunities for parties to fill a few key gaps in the democratic system and regain their relevance. First, there is information. A lot of it. Increasingly, citizens have a great deal of difficulty keeping up with the vast amounts of information made available to them on issues and policy options and making a determination as to the quality of the information and the validity of the argument. In a sea of voices being heard on every issue, parties in the future could become one of the ways in which citizens assess the value of the information that is out there. Secondly, there is choice. Not enough of it. The proliferation of ever-smaller groups with ever-narrower issues of focus has meant that the democratic system has lost a great deal of its ability to identify priorities and make collective choices. Political parties should be the vehicle through which citizens are compelled to weight the merits of competing priorities and choose. As one participant put it, “having voice in the system is a democratic right. Having to make choices is the democratic responsibility that goes with it.” The challenge will be to get citizens to view ‘aggregation’ as a worthy democratic exercise. In the end, parties will have to make a choice regarding whether they are institutions of the past, or part of the future. How we practice democracy has changed and, to survive, parties have to change along with it. Will they?
18 RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWEES The Public Policy Forum and the Crossing Boundaries National Council would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution to this project: Diane Ablonczy Roxanna Benoit Jean-Serge Brisson Anna di Carlo David Chernuchenko Penny Collenette Françoise David Miguel Figueroa Connie Fogal Mona Fortier Jeff Fox Ron Gray Allan Gregg Jamey Heath Tessa Hebb Éric Hébert David Herle Blair Longley Steven MacKinnon Leslie Noble John Parisella Cyrus Reporter Monique Richard Robin Sears Hon. Hugh Segal Hon. David Smith
Conservative Party of Canada, Reform Party of Canada Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta Libertarian Party of Canada Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada Green Party of Canada Liberal Party of Canada Option citoyenne Communist Party of Canada Canadian Action Party Liberal Party of Canada BC New Democratic Party Christian Heritage Party Progressive Conservative Party of Canada New Democratic Party of Canada New Democratic Party of Canada New Democratic Party of Canada Liberal Party of Canada Marijuana Party of Canada Liberal Party of Canada, Liberal Party of New Brunswick Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Parti libéral du Québec Liberal Party of Canada Parti Québécois New Democratic Party of Canada, New Democratic Party of Ontario Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Liberal Party of Canada
