This makes for a rare week for me - a week where I agree with the Conservatives twice. However, the first, was with the government line (over arming Syrian rebels). The second is my agreement with a conservative man, in opposition to that party. I do not agree with everything that MP Rathgeber believes, but I acknowledge that his resignation is both bold and principled. We sometimes think rather cynically of the motives of our elected representatives. By appearances, his motives and actions are not merely acceptable by worthy of congratulation. Members of all parties claim to be people of principle, and he stood on his principles.
Having said that, the reaction of the party is petty and juvenile, and symbolic of the issues with our democracy. They responded to his resignation by stating “The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a by-election.” While the first contention is very likely true, it is also irrelevant to the second point. I know many of you are agreeing with the Conservative Party line. You probably think it is democratic - if his riding agrees with him, they will re-elect him. In reality it is the opposite of democracy - it is populism.
For, in our more democratic past (and the democratic presents of many of our cousins internationally), it is not considered a mortal sin to go against the party line. Members can come and go from one side of parliament to the next as it suits them. They are not considered traitors. They are not considered replaceable. Indeed, Winston Churchill did this very thing himself, sitting as the Liberal for many years, before rejoining the Conservative Party. For what would be considered in contemporary Canada an unforgivable travesty, Sir Winston was only Prime Minister twice.
By threatening MP Rathgeber the Conservatives are re-asserting an old line: that you cannot go against our party, and that you are replaceable. It must be said that politically they haven't much to lose: they've already lost an MP, while the opposition has gained (it doesn't matter that he could vote for the Conservatives on every occasion) - but if he agrees to a by-election, he will be removed from Parliament for a matter of months, and once the byelection occurs, then it is very likely the Conservatives will win, as we are talking of Alberta, unless Calgary-Centre was not a fluke. Accordingly, the Conservatives will suffer no further damage, while their apparent opponents will.
However, what this issue is about is control. I believe that we all believe that people should be able to vote with their conscience, even if they are in parliament. I feel, and I'm sure that there are others, who agree with me that the Canadian overuse on the "party whip" is abhorent. If you support the Conservative Party's call for a byelection, and share those convictions with me, you are, hopefully unconsciously, betraying them. For, we are presenting them with an ultimatum: if you stand by your conscience, you should be immediately dismissed from Parliament. Such is the consequence of resigning from parliament. It may only be temporary, but in all likelihood, it is permanent. The Party believes it can replace them with someone less independent.
I must now ask three questions: first, are the Constituents of Edmonton-St. Albert served after MP Rathgeber resigns? Second, who will represent them better? The current MP, or his likely successor? Though it will betray my bias, I have to qualify that likely successor as in all likelihood a subservient party lapdog. Finally, what are Members of Parliament elected to do? Is it a) Represent their constituents or b) Support the Party that funded their campaign?
Rathgeber has stood by his principles in resigning from the caucus. He has followed age old precedent, a practice which has unfortunately been exterminated in this country. There is no law that says that he now must resign from Parliament. He can represent his constituents as ably as an independent as a Conservative, and that is all that matters. Were the Conservatives more principled they would not threaten to destroy his career, but respect his action, respect his principles, and invite him to return to their caucus, as his action was so admirable and worthy of one of their party members. Indeed example should be applauded, and if necessary, repeated. However, I would wish it were not necessary. We Canadians need to put away the whips, and the sooner the better.
P.S. For fun, think about past regimes where loyalty to the party came ahead of loyalty to the people! Multiple points for multiple answers!
No comments:
Post a Comment