Mediaboss Marketing

In politics, as in life, there are few things more distasteful than a bully.

Weve see quite a few political bullies lately. Situations where political parties with majority mandates use their unfettered power to not only pursue their policy and legislative agendas, but also change the very nature of democracy itself.

In Washington, D.C., last week, we watched as the Republican majority in the Senate used its majority to change the rules for the confirmation of nominees to the Supreme Court.

Given the importance of the matter, the Senate formerly allowed minority parties to filibuster the presidents nominees for the high court as a way of moderating the power of both majority parties and the office of the president. Ending a filibuster required a 60-vote "super majority," rather than a simple majority. The super-majority requirement typically triggered bipartisan negotiations to bring a filibuster to an end.

All that changed last week when Republicans, tired of Democratic delay tactics, unleashed the "nuclear option." Simply put, Senate Republicans voted to change the rules that required a super majority to end a filibuster on a Supreme Court nomination. In an ironic twist, you do not need a super majority to change the rules about when a super majority is required.

Without going into a lot of history on the so-called nuclear option, it should be noted Democrats have themselves used nuclear options to limit the need for super majorities in other scenarios. More worrisome is the fact there are rumours circulating around Capitol Hill that Republicans may continue to change the very rules governing the operation of Congress to end the practice of filibustering legislation.

This is no small change to the foundations of American democracy. Filibusters, and other procedural tactics used by minority parties, are essential to ensure majority bullies must negotiate with their political opponents to achieve legislative progress. Take away the filibuster and other delay tactics, and you really amplify the power of the majority. And thats not really democracy.

However, Americans are hardly alone in this trend toward political bullying.

In Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative government introduced a bill recently that contains a series of changes to the way we conduct elections, including new, higher political donation limits, new voter identification rules and restrictions on third-party advertising. Opposition critics and democracy advocates believe the changes a mere formality given the Tory majority in the Manitoba Legislature are inherently skewed to aiding the current government.

In Ottawa, the federal Liberal government is also demonstrating an appetite for bully tactics. Last month, the Liberal government released a discussion paper that outlined possible changes to the way parliament works, including reforms for question period, debate scheduling and rules for committee business.

Opposition parties believe the changes could severely limit their ability to hold the government accountable. They are filibustering the proposals at committee until the Liberals agree to seek all-party support for any changes to the rules of parliament. The opposition filibuster prompted Grit House Leader Bardish Chagger to complain last week the government would never allow the opposition to have a "veto" over "our campaign commitments."

Its hard to overstate the absurdity and arrogance of that comment. At least Republicans in Washington had the decency to call their bully tactics the "nuclear option," a term that seems to acknowledge the gravity of the violence being done to a democratic institution. Liberals seem to think the whole notion of seeking the support of opposition parties to change the rules of parliament is, in and of itself, somehow unfair. Back in government less than two years and the Liberals have already forgotten what it was like to be in opposition.

Empathy is certainly in short supply in the scenarios described above. Even now, Conservative party critics howling at Liberal indifference should remember the absurdly named "Fair Elections Act," a law that was anything but. Its changes to voter identification rules are thought to have discouraged tens of thousands of Canadians from voting in the last election. The current Liberal government is in the process of undoing those changes.

Lamentably, rather than moving closer to a world of bipartisan collaboration or public consultation on changes to democratic institutions, we are surrounded by examples of mischievous, malicious tinkering by majority governments that seem to have no shame about making changes that, for the most part, seem to have less to do about improving democracy, and more to do with creating strategic political advantages.

Along with empathy, we seem to be suffering from a deficit of principle. The rules that safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions legislatures, courts, elections should not be changed often, or at the whim of a majority. And when changes are necessary, there should be a requirement to seek the support of both majority and minority political parties.

Ironically, the Liberals understood this need when it came to the idea of changing our electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had pledged during the 2015 federal election that recommendations for electoral reform would be made by an all-party committee of Parliament. Later, the Liberal government decided that any proposals from that committee should be put to the nation in a referendum.

The Liberals abandoned electoral reform as a policy priority, concerned that proportional representation would open the door to extremist political elements. Still, Trudeau seemed to understand that no government with a majority mandate should use that power to change something as fundamental as how we elect our politicians.

It would be welcomed if the Liberals in Ottawa and the Tories in Manitoba were to take a similar approach when it comes to any changes to democratic institutions. Or, perhaps, these changes could be undertaken by a non-partisan, arms-length commission that could sort through ideas that make the system fairer and more accountable, and discard those that seek only to stack the deck.

One thing is for certain: until we all agree that changes to the pillars of democracy are not the prerogative of a majority government, bullies will carry the day.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Excerpt from:
Bully governments degrade democracy - Winnipeg Free Press