Canadian opposition parties
and pundits both favor allowing government backbenchers greater freedom to vote
against government bills and speak up against government policies. They like
the idea of letting the Prime Minister and his Party’s debt-holders in the
House of Commons act as if they were free agents in public. At the same time,
they don’t want things to get out of hand; they’re heavily invested in the
proposition that the constitutional division of powers between the President
and separate Houses of Congress is the source of America’s terrible political
gridlock.
Consequently, they are
squeamish about creating an elected Canadian Senate. An assembly of politicians
elected in province-wide elections would be tricky. They’d answer to their own voters, they’d have their own following, and they wouldn’t be Senators
because they had once caught the eye of a prime minister.
By being elected, they’d
shift attention and, eventually, some concrete power from the House of Commons.
The place would be emboldened—and, at the same time, corrupted—by electoral
legitimacy and political ambition.
Setting aside the possibility
that Canada’s federation is so small and so united that it doesn’t need even a
rainy-day reserve of political authority in its national capital, would it be a nuisance to have a separate arena of politicians with futures as well as
pasts?
Is it really for the better
that Canada’s Senate is composed mainly of individuals with illustrious resumes
rather than one with a few with illustrious ambitions?
Jonathan Bernstein
recalls that the US Senate is often
effective as well as powerful because many of its leaders have the audacity—and the means—to pursue the presidency:
“In
fact, as the political scientist Nelson W. Polsby used to argue, much of the
way the Senate works can be seen in terms of the number of senators who act with
at least one eye on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s a well-known
cliché that when senators look in the mirror, they see a president – and it’s a
cliché well-rooted in fact. I counted
at least 28 senators from the 99th Senate (1985-1986) who at some point either
actively ran for the presidency, were vice-presidential nominees, or who came
close to a White House run. If we add V.P. short-listers, my count for the 104th
Senate (1995-1996) reaches 31 national candidates or almost-candidates.”
In Canada’s national politics,
leadership change is a cramped bipolar trap.
You’ll succeed Stephen Harper
by being a competent team player in his Cabinet or by being an effective
opposition leader in the House of Commons. The only other way that would work is to
leave Ottawa and come back a few elections later, after a being a celebrity
lawyer or banker.
No comments:
Post a Comment