If you want to know more about non-partisna democracy, you can read more about it here:
Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Woudl you favour a non-partisan Parliamentary system?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I am all in favor of politicians doing what their constituents tell them rather than toeing the party line. Probably would never work though. But we can fire the bad ones every four years and prevent them from getting fat pensions.
What do yo mean 'it would probably never work'?
Non-partisan democracy is already in effect in Nunavut and the NWT. If they can do it, why can't we? Are we too proud to learn from the Inuit?
I've always admired the courage of independent candidates to stand against candidates with brand names supporting them. Too bad there wasn't one in my riding last election. But if an independent candidate can present some good ideas, I'll give him my vote. I'm sick and tired of government being highjacked by parties.
People tend to assume that what works on a smaller government level simply won't work as well on a large scale. I don't think it's necessarily that they're dismissing what the Inuit are up to so much as assuming that it works because of small populations.
I think taxsalve is right, it won’t work. To govern a country needs a unified vision, a plan for the whole country.
Without political parties we will have 300 MPs with 300 different agendas, most of them favoring their local constituency. It will be every riding for itself, every region for itself, and Devil take the hindmost.
Most of the nationwide concepts such as transportation, environment, economic development require a national vision, not a vision restricted to one riding. Thus if money is needed in a poor province such as Newfoundland, government can direct money to Newfoundland.
300 MPs, each fighting for his or her own riding is the ultimate democratic nightmare. It won’t work.
Without political parties we will have 300 MPs with 300 different agendas, most of them favoring their local constituency. It will be every riding for itself, every region for itself, and Devil take the hindmost.
Most of the nationwide concepts such as transportation, environment, economic development require a national vision, not a vision restricted to one riding. Thus if money is needed in a poor province such as Newfoundland, government can direct money to Newfoundland.
300 MPs, each fighting for his or her own riding is the ultimate democratic nightmare. It won’t work.
I believe that on the contrary, a non-partisan system could provide a more unified vision than a partisan one. Without parties, MP's are more open to new ides, are more open to changing their minds and forming new co-alitions. In a non-partisan system, the PM would be elected by the house and so be more likley to get the House's support. He's also likely to be more moderate and capable of finding common ground. Caucuses in such a system are not party caucuses, but caucuses of the House, so again a chance to bonce ideas off of each other in a ess segregated environment and so again be free to exhange ideas and adopt new ideas, an environment a party system is not conducive towards.
Also, in a non-partisan system, we wouldn't have NDP-ers and Liberals, and Conservatives, and Blocists. We'd just have Canadians.
No we wouldn't necessarily. We might just have BC'ers vs Albertans vs Saskers vs Tobans.... on and on and on, with, as Jo put it, nothing but their regional interests for them to be working towards.
I don't beleive so, unless of course regional parties came to be. But without regional parties (it would be a non-partisan system after all) such regional co-alitions would be hard to establish since each member from that region would have to have a regionalist agenda. If not, then only some MP's from the region would hold that agenda, meaning that the situation would have to be pretty bad for so many MP's to form regional co-alitions.
Look at Quebec. Some vote Bloc just as a sovereigntist vote, with no concern for other Bloc ideas. Without parties, it would make it more difficult (granted not impossible, but more difficult) for MPs across uebec to organize into a co-alition. In the case of Quebec it's likely to happen, but unlike a party, it would still be more fragile.
But don't you see... that's exactly what Jo is saying... with no coalitions, there is no cohesion. With no cohesion, how do you run a country.
I can see more ways that a non-partisan government could go wrong than I can see ways it can succeed.
And to say 'it wouldn't' doesn't cut it. No one can predict the future. Do you know of any non-partisan governments that could equal the complexity of a country like Canada on the whole, that have run successfully?
Then I'd be open to at least a more toned down political system. For example:
No more government funding of political parties.
No more party names appearing on ballots.
That could be a start as we experiment to see if it works. If it does work, then we gradually go one step further.
But from what I can see, partisan politics is currently destroying our country. It's dividing the country along party lines, making all but the party leaders redundant, etc.
No more government funding of political parties.
No more party names appearing on ballots.
That could be a start as we experiment to see if it works. If it does work, then we gradually go one step further.
But from what I can see, partisan politics is currently destroying our country. It's dividing the country along party lines, making all but the party leaders redundant, etc.
Also, I don;t see no cohesion in such a sysem. I'd say that unlike in a party system, alliances would shift for each bill presented, thus making them more fluid, less predictable, and so not ot be taken for granted. They'd still exist, but unlike in a party system, the division would not be set in stone. Whenever an MP comes up with a good idea, other MP's would be more open to supporting him than in a partisan system.
Indeed we would, karrie. We would also have Catholics vs. Protestant (an MP from a predominantly Catholic riding would be more inclined to look after the interests of Catholics, an MP from a predominantly Protestant riding would be likely to look after interest of Protestants), gay vs. straight (predominantly gay riding vs., predominantly straight riding) Christian vs. Muslims, urban vs. rural, rich vs. poor, whites vs. black and several dozen other divisions imaginable. It will be a nightmare.
Like we are not already in one. Partisanship has held a strangle hold on our governments for ever. Parties these days do only represent the larger regions of Quebec and Ontario as it is. The East and the west have been left sucking the hind tits since confederation. An Inuit style government would ensure equal representation.
That could force all sides to start looking for common ground. After all, if the divisions are so many, we're not likely to end up with a majority on any of those fronts. This would force MP's to look for common ground on more important issues. Right now, there's little incentive to find common ground beyond ensuring a majority btween one or two parties. Beyond that, division reigns. In that sense, more diversity as you mention above would force common ground.
Not to mention an easier system to understand overall. A ballot with candidates' names on them. You choose the best candidate, and that's it. No more trying to figure out which pary leader has the best quaff because there wouldn't be a party leader. The PM would be voted in by the House and so likely have more support from the House too thus reducing confrontationalism and increasing consensus through ever-changing alliances.
With partisanship holding the country so firmly by the nuts already, it makes me wonder if it's even worth voting until we get the parties off our ballots at least.
That could force all sides to start looking for common ground. After all, if the divisions are so many, we're not likely to end up with a majority on any of those fronts.
Machjo, a more likely outcome is that nothing will get done, there won’t be majority to do anything. With so many diverse interests, the chances that more than half the MPs will agree on some issue are minimal.
In a party system, MPs many times suppress their individual desire for the good of the party (and supposedly for the good of the country). Thus, whether Catholic or Protestant, gay or straight etc., once MPs decide something in the caucus, they put their differences aside and vote for the party platform.
That won’t happen when there is no need for MPs to compromise on anything, the result will be total gridlock, everything will be frozen.
Machjo, a more likely outcome is that nothing will get done, there won’t be majority to do anything. With so many diverse interests, the chances that more than half the MPs will agree on some issue are minimal.
In a party system, MPs many times suppress their individual desire for the good of the party (and supposedly for the good of the country). Thus, whether Catholic or Protestant, gay or straight etc., once MPs decide something in the caucus, they put their differences aside and vote for the party platform.
That won’t happen when there is no need for MPs to compromise on anything, the result will be total gridlock, everything will be frozen.