While I prefer Stephen Harpers ability to lead, I sometimes find myself at arms length from his policies. Contrarily I find myself in favour of many Green policies, but Elizabeth May turns me away from a leadership and political experience perspective.
Great policies, but would you really give her the keys to the country???
This has led me to ask - "why must there be a coupling of policy and person?" Why can't we give the government a mandate and vote for the best person to deliver on said mandate.
In most modern organizations there has been a clear separation of power. For instance in the corporate and NGO world - 'What we should do' typically falls under marketing, product management and the executive ranks. Who should lead us falls under human resources and the executive team.
My Proposal
The Liberals of the 90s started a new phase in electoral concepts by introducing the now infamous Red Book. It gave the people a view of the party's vision. Online collaboration and e-government have potentially given us new and exciting tools for collaborative creation. Before any upcoming elections why not have a nation-wide 'brainstorming' and 'prioritizing' session to let the people define a vision for Canada... instead of having the party and prime minister define a vision.
For instance, any citizen could simply add an idea to the list - online, wiki-style or via their current MP. After all ideas had been listed, managed and collated, citizens would have the ability to 'vote' on the list. The parties in this stage would ultimately try to educate us on issues in order to have the people skew their opinion towards that party; thereby educating us more and more on the particular issues. And hopefully the result would be a grassroots vision of what Canada will do for the next 4 years.
Party elections would follow. The elections would undergo a change of focus into who could deliver best and who most embodies the vision of Canada as defined by the people. The elected government would then be given an outline of a mandate for their tenure.
We also have to allow for vision and ideas from the parliaments and executive branch, who are presumably political 'experts'. At the point of establishing government we could allow the House of Commons and the Senate to weigh in on the vision. The ideas of the people would have some sort of priority or weight vs the priorities of the legislature vs the priorities of the executive vs the priorities of the senate, ultimately giving us a top 20 goals or 'to do' list.
I'd vote for him... but not so much his so-con agenda
Given that there will be unpredictable reactionary elements to governance (CN strikes, wars in Afghanistan, recessions, etc), the government clearly needs flexibility in delivery. Mandating delivery of the given vision would clearly be a mistake.
Instead clear reporting should be in place, via mass media, to indicate what had been done by each parliament and why. Mass media and government communication channels would be required to be delivered. Expectations would be for MPs to deliver a statement of progress periodically, as well as in a reactionary fashion to any government changes in priority. At the end of each parliament a more detailed report outlining what has been delivered and what has not been delivered would be provided with various explanations and recommendations for a path forward.
Effectively my proposal is an in between of participatory/grassroots and representative democratic systems. Ultimately the politics and consensus building in a grassroots democracy could lead to NIMBYism and a severe lack of productivity. The idea is to let the public provide a participatory mandate & vision but let the government deliver, or not deliver, in an efficient and lean/productive manner.
Advantages of this Proposal
The system allows a clear decoupling of what and who. This system would allow the people to define the vision of Canada, instead of the party. This system would allow us to find the best prime minister to deliver on our vision or who best embodies this vision of Canada.
Disadvantages of this Proposal
Clearly it would make the electoral system more expensive and slower.
Demographics could also heavily drive the vision with Ontario voting power and declining participatory rates between older and younger generations.
Wedge issues, such as in the US, could be more prominent with the new emphasis on the issue versus the party.
Finally there would be huge education cost. Clearly the more participatory the democracy the more education is required on governance and issues. New innovative, continuous, adult education programs would be required at a real cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment