Samara’s Democracy 360 Report

Samara, the Canadian Democracy Measurement folks have just released their latest report on the state of our democracy and its not good! This is no surprise to those of us who have been taking notice but with generally 40% or less giving any time to even discuss political issues with anybody (online or in person) it would seem that the majority don’t even care.


The following are a few extracts from their report “Samara’s Democracy 360, a report card on the state of Canada’s democracy” (260K PDF)


“Only 31% of Canadians believe politics affects them every day.
Only 37% give any time or resources to formal political activities between elections.
A surprising number (39%) say they haven’t had a single political conversation—online or offline—in a year-long period. With a federal voter turnout of 61%, Canada ranks in the bottom fifth among democracies, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development”


“Canadians gave MPs failing grades in all but one area: representing their parties’ views (57%). This percentage is notably higher than the grades they received for representing constituents (45%) or holding government to account (42%).they reserve their lowest marks for parties’ performance in reaching out to Canadians to hear their views (42%).
Only 40% of Canadians report that they trust MPs to do what is right and only 42% of Canadians place some trust in political parties.
Canadians give MPs and political parties failing grades on nearly all their responsibilities, ranging from reaching out to citizens to their work in Parliament. Overall, Canadians feel MPs do a better job representing the views of the party than
they do representing their constituents....... only 40% of Canadians report that they
trust their MPs to do what is right. Political parties fare no better: only 42% of Canadians report trusting them.”


“Even for a very accessible form of participation—talking about politics both online or in person—a large number of Canadians (39%) report never having had a single political conversation in a year-long period.
Particularly troublesome is that this declining turnout is driven almost entirely by young Canadians (aged 18 to 24), who vote at almost half the rate (39%) as Canadians aged 65 to 74 (75%)”


“MPs have the tools to speak to Canadians and they use them, but whether they do so successfully is more difficult to ascertain; Canadians’ low trust levels suggest there is room for improvement. For example, when social media is used more often to broadcast a message, rather than gather input or exchange views, it misses a chance to engage.”
In earlier interviews Samara says that “MPs also report being stymied by their own parties, which prevents them from doing the job they initially sought. It’s clear that in order to restore the trust of those who elect them, party leaders and MPs should work
towards more balanced relationships—relationships that enable MPs to better fulfill their jobs as representatives.”


And therein lays the biggest problem in my opinion, until such time as our 'representatives' can actually represent US not their party then democracy will continue its downward slide. In their report Samara puts it this way:-


“Canada’s democracy is now like a slow leak when it rains. It’s easy to
ignore a pesky leak, but if left until the damage becomes severe or a
storm rages, the problem will become more difficult and expensive to
correct.”
Perhaps more than difficult but all but impossible once the roof falls in, and particularly troubling with the Harper Regime constantly picking at the hole and increasing the leak!

If there is one thing we can take away from this report it is that getting the younger citizen to "get involoved", if only to the point of voting, is essential for the survival of our democracy. Unfortunatly it is these young folk who will reap the results of their disinterest in what remains of our country's democratic system.

If you have not done so already I urge you to read Samara's various reports going back several years, its scary stuff but their objective research and resulting conclusions paint a clear picture of where our democracy is headed. You may wish to view some of my earlier posts featuring their work here.


Also see The Democracy 360 Numbers, a companion to the report, describing all 23 indicators of a healthy representative democracy, offering a rich resource of data for media and any interested citizens.






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Political Participation and Perception

In their latest report “By Invitation Only:Canadians’ Perceptions of Political Parties” Samara, the measuring democracy people, identified six key roles of political parties’ functions in three main areas. In a survey concentrating upon the areas of Elections, Engagement & Policy they asked their respondents to rate the performance of Canadian political parties on each of them. The results indicate that political parties are not doing well in any of these areas.

1. Recruiting candidates and competing in elections - 43% grade
   
2. Encouraging people to vote – 46% grade
   
3. Hearing ideas from party members – 54% grade
   
4. Reaching out to Canadians so their views can be represented – 50% grade
   
5. Coming up with new policy ideas and solutions – 49% grade
   
6. Explaining what the party stands for – 53% grade
   

There was little difference in the grades from the approximately 10% of respondents who were members of a political party. The only surprise to me was that they scored so high! This is not to say that all political parties are doing this bad in outreach to the voting public but that the public perception is that they are not doing a good job. I suspect that a great deal of this is brought on by the various governing parties, provincial and federal, who increasingly seem to be ignoring public opinion and needs in favour of international and corporate needs and wants. This leave the average citizens with the feeling that anything they may say or do has no impact upon the politicians and thus they ignore any attempt to have dialogue about these things. You may draw you own conclusions by reading their PDF report here.


In their conclusions Samara says
“The survey results show that Canadians value engagement, suggesting that those parties that genuinely try to hear, involve and represent them will be rewarded in the form of votes, fundraising
dollars and party members. But to see themselves involved in a party, Canadians need an invitation that will get them past that closed door. At the moment, parties’ operations and priorities are often
opaque, even to those arguably inside the system, such as MPs.
This transformation will take time and will not be easy, yet there are simple first steps parties could take to open that door and let in some light.“


One such suggestion they make is that the dates and locations of local riding association meetings be more widely available, and presumably open to the general public. As a member of one such EDA who holds and advertises such open meetings, has an online forum where members can voice their oppinion and a facebook page where anyone can post I can say with a fair degree of certainty that its not that easy. Despite the opportunity to become 'involved' neither those who were interested to become members or the general public show much interest. In broad terms and using figures from around the time of the 2011 election less than 5% of those who supported our particular party during the election ever 'joined' the party, and that figure declines considerably between elections, of that number less than 10% regularly attend a meeting or otherwise join in the activities of the EDA and even then it is rare that fresh faces are seen. Likewise it is rare to have interested members of the public to show any interest despite efforts to include them during meetings. The members forum is largely unused and only one or two individuals actually contribute to it, the parties national site which provides similar opportunities for members to participate is similarity little used, the percentage of the general public who actually WANT to have input seems to be VERY small. I cannot say if this is typical as such numbers from the various parties are not generally available, something which Samara says would “allow Canadians to see the quantity and diversity of party members.”


I suspect this is all brought on by Canadians being sick and tired of beating their heads against an uncaring brick wall, a situation being encouraged by the current federal regime with their ever expanding attacks upon our democratic institutions and practises. Citizens are becoming increasingly disengaged, a situation that Samara has studied before and one which I have reported upon here some time ago. Its hard to 'measure' democracy particularly when its equally hard to define democracy but these folks are trying and I recommend that you read some of their earlier reports (see the pull down menu under 'research') even if they do confirm what most of us know intuitively. I have earlier made some suggestions as to some of the things that perhaps they should be measuring on an ongoing basis to more clearly see the changes taking place and hope to see such data in future reports.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

No One Is Listening

Below a few extracts from the 128 page report by the measuring democracy people at Samara a non-partisan charitable champion of increased civic engagement.


In spring 2017, Samara Canada surveyed Members of the 42^nd Parliament to explore the state of heckling and decorum from the perspective of those in the House. The survey reveals that incivility remains a problem. It also suggests that MPs have mixed feelings about heckling. They don’t like the state of debate in Parliament, but they don't want to get rid of heckling entirely either. This is still the case even though they know citizens don't like it.

This report presents the results of a survey of sitting MPs on incivility and particularly the practice of heckling. Firstly, it looks at what’s changed and what remains the same with respect to heckling in the current Parliament. Secondly, it examines three main types of heckling and three main reasons why MPs persist in heckling, despite increased pressure not to. Finally, it makes recommendations about how Parliament can nudge its Members toward the kind of culture change that Canadians want to see—to elevate the debate and foster an environment of dignity and respect............

The parties themselves have also taken action to reduce heckling, with leaders publicly promising more civil debate. However, while this survey found an almost even split between respondents who had been formally advised by their parties on how to deal with heckling (49%) and those who had not (51%), there was a marked partisan difference here: 81% of Liberals, 50% of New Democrats and 22% of Conservatives report being advised by their parties about heckling.

When surveyed, most MPs admitted they do not like heckling, but most MPs heckle. This is the paradox explored in Samara’s previous report “Cheering or Jeering?,” and it holds true here. A little over half of respondents agreed that heckling is “a problem.” Only 16% of respondents said they see heckling as beneficial to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, about two thirds of MPs (65%) admit to having heckled at some point.............
There is a second category of heckling that is more personal. A full 80% of MPs heard Members heckled for their delivery in the House “You’d think it was Grade Five. I don’t think Grade Fives would do that today. But it’s very juvenile behaviour. It’s obnoxious behaviour to be yelling at somebody because they have paused for a second, or misspoken a word, whatever.”

Most commonly, MPs heard colleagues heckled for their idea, comment or question (94%). Most heard MPs heckled for their political party (74%), their ideology (61%) or ethics (58%)............
While a majority of MPs regard heckling in the 42nd Parliament as a problem, they actually express rather nuanced and mixed feelings toward the practice generally. Only 38% would see it abolished outright—although here rookies and veterans part ways once again. Fully half of rookies favour abolishing, versus only 19% of veterans.

A fourth theme illuminated in an open-ended question among heckling’s defenders was that they were merely preserving an important tradition of Westminster parliaments–Parliaments that spring from the British parliamentary tradition, as ours does. One MP waxed poetic: “Keep it clean and respectful … but let it roll on as a magnificent continuation of our Canadian political history and parliamentary tradition.” Another conceded that heckling was unpopular, but suggested that this was because the public did not fully grasp the history and function: “The public likely doesn’t understand that heckling is a long-standing tradition in parliaments across the world.” “The House is not a church or school. Some outbursts are reflective of genuine outrage.” “Until accountability and truthfulness are restored, I don’t think it will stop.”

One MP put a fine point on it: “There are not examples of a Westminster-style parliament where heckling does not occur. If you can’t handle it, you should be looking for another line of work.” While heckling does have a long history in Canada, there is also a long-standing tradition of not heckling in many national legislatures, including the US Congress and most continental European parliaments. There is also no shortage of Westminster parliaments that are similarly respectful—from New Zealand to the Caribbean, regional parliaments in the UK to territorial legislatures in the Canadian North

One of the suggested solutions
MPs, particularly on the backbenches, lack meaningful opportunities to make themselves heard in Parliament. Truly fixing heckling means thinking about procedural fixes to foster a better debate generally. It also means finding new ways to empower backbench MPs.
Currently, questions and answers are limited to 35-seconds during Question Period. MPs must resort to sound bites as a result. If MPs had the time to make their case, or to pin down a perceived falsehood from another Member (for example), then that rationale for heckling disappears.


In total, 84 MPs responded to the survey. At the time of the survey, 338 MPs were sitting in the House.


I do not follow question period or any of the other daily broadcasts on CPAC just the few brief clips of some MPs behavior shown on the evening newscast is enough to turn my stomach, whilst much of the behavior during QP is more for the camera than to actually promote serious discussion of the issues the ability of those who do have the stomach for it to see (actually more hear the background heckling) the proceedings is important. If Canada is not to descend into the same sort of parliamentary dysfunction shown by a number of legislatures in Europe then our MPs must show more respect for each others point of view AND for those who view the proceedings!
Recently a vocal critic of heckling in the House of Commons, (Green Partys Elizabeth) May said there is still too much reading of notes and "bad high school drama" during question period and debates. She credits the Liberals for trying to improve the tone, but said the behaviour of the other opposition parties remains "appalling."

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Balancing Act Important For Democracy

A guest artile by Jared Milne
I’m currently reading Brent Rathgeber’s excellent book “Irresponsible Government: the Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada”, which describes the methods that Canadian prime ministers have used to consolidate power in the Prime Minister’s Office, and force their Members of Parliament to follow all of their directions. MPs are now expected to only obey the prime minister, instead of keeping him and his Cabinet accountable the way Canada’s system of responsible government has traditionally required.

Many Canadians have been increasingly turned off by this system of top-down control. Samara, an organization dedicated to strengthening Canadian democracy, has noted that many Canadians believe that Canadian politicians and parties only want their votes, and don’t care about listening to their concerns. MPs are only seen as representing the views of their parties, instead of their constituents. Samara also found that even many MPs themselves came to feel that their efforts to represent their constituents were hampered by the dictates of their political parties. Many citizens told Samara that they had become disengaged from politics because they didn’t feel that it was really addressing their needs, and made them feel like outsiders. Significantly, many MPs also came to feel as though they became outsiders in their own parties.

Stephen Harper is not the first prime minister to increasingly centralize control in the Prime Minister’s Office. However, it’s been said that he has continued this trend because of the experiences of the Reform Party in the 1990s, when some of its candidates made statements that were later used by its opponents to smear the Reformers as bigoted and intolerant. These types of “bozo eruptions” can be a major political hazard, such as in the 2012 Alberta election. The statements made by Wildrose Alliance candidate Alan Hunsperger about gay people dying in a “lake of fire” are widely seen as a major factor in the Wildrose’s defeat.

The Reform party and the Wildrose both prided themselves on engaging their grassroots, and enabling members to speak their minds freely. This can make people feel like they’re being listened to, and their views are being taken into account by the party leadership. However, it also brings the risk that those views can be used by the party’s electoral opponents to make them look bad and turn voters off.
The challenge for political leaders, then, becomes how to listen to citizens’ views and make them feel as though they’re being listened to, while also determining which ideas are the best ones to act on and how they will be perceived by the public.

This would require a complicated balancing act, and not everyone would be happy with the results. However, it would still be better the current trend of centralizing power at the top of the party leadership, which then dictates how Members of Parliament vote and exercises top-down control on them. That trend has only turned countless Canadians off of politics, and weakened our democracy as a whole.

Jared Milne is a writer, researcher and public servant living in St. Albert, Alberta. His major interests including Canadian unity, nationalism and history, particularly regarding how Canada's incredibly rich past has affected the present we live in today.
-This article was published in the St. Albert Gazette on January 14, 2015 and is available online at http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20150114/SAG0903/301149997/0/sag. 

 
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

New Report on the State of our Democracy.

The Samara Centre for Democracy interviewed 54 former MPs from the last Parliament about their experience in Ottawa and found many of them questioning the very purpose of being an MP in an era when political power is concentrated in the hands of party leaders. The Samara Centre is a non-partisan charity working to improve Canadian politics.

The study focuses on the 41st Parliament, which ran from 2011 to 2015 and was led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s majority government.

The Justin Trudeau-led Liberal Party was elected to a majority government in 2015 on a platform that included promises to improve Parliament and make MPs more independent. The report notes there is anecdotal evidence from the current Parliament that many of the same problems remain.

Last year, Samara, with the assistance of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamen-

tarians, again reached out to past representatives—this time to MPs who had sat in the

41st Parliament (2011–2015) and who resigned or were defeated in the 2015 general

election.

The interviews made one thing clear: the problem of a “job with no description” has not been solved. In some ways, it has worsened. Parliamentarians are more cut off from the essential work of scrutiny, legislation and representation than before. The couple of small extracts shown below are but a fraction of this 42 page report and whilst it reflects the situation at the end of Harpers time in power it is no less relevant to today's parliament.

Leaders have grown in strength and capacity relative to the party caucus.

Unelected staffers to the leader—the “boys (and girls) in short pants”—carefully manage the party brand. As the MPs in our first round of interviews explained, any dissent from the party leadership is rare, inconsequential and swiftly punished. Step out of line, even on an ostensibly free vote, and “your name’s now on somebody’s hit list,”

The last Parliament saw by far the most use of time allocation since the tool was introduced permanently in 1968—more than double the previous high-water mark. But the problem has hardly resolved itself. In fact, the current Parliament is easily on track to see the second most frequent use of time allocation. (The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management, but the government may use a time allocation motion as a guillotine. In fact, although the rule allows the government to negotiate with opposition parties on the adoption of a timetable for the consideration of a bill , it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. )

“Committees are the best and most urgent site for reform.”

Not only are considerable parliamentary time and resources already dedicated to them, but committees also offer the best promise to empower MPs.

Committees might never be must-watch television. But they can be home to the kind of politics citizens often say they want: cross-partisan, substantive, evidence-based, civil and accessible. They could also provide a neat “package” for supporting the independence and thoughtfulness of Mps

As one MP described, before committee met, “They have precommittee meetings. And that’s not when you discuss what’s going to happen in committee. You are told

what’s going to happen in committee. And the [party] staff is all too happy to provide backbenchers with questions to ask.”

In 2018, it’s urgent that Canadians rehabilitate representative democracy as the middle

ground between daily referendums and government by unchecked elites. At the centre of

representative democracy are the representatives themselves—the critical link between

citizens and their democratic institutions.

Parliament is degraded, and as one former MP put it: “We don’t have a democracy, outside of that institution.” An intervention is needed.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Essential Reading for Democracy.

There have been a number of articles highlighting former Conservative MP Mr. Rathgeber’s new book Irresponsible Government: The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada in recent days. That he outlines the tight control that the PMO exercises over the Conservative MP's is hardly a surprise given that he quit the Conservative caucus over having his private members bill nixed by them, however such concerns by those who sit, of have sat, in the House are not new.

“Mr. Rathgeber, twice elected as a Conservative before quitting caucus last year, outlines how MPs have seen their powers fade away, reduced to “cheer-leading and barking on command” while the PMO has grown stronger over decades, under Mr. Harper and his predecessors, with little oversight.”

Indeed if we take a look at some of the exit interviews conducted by Samara, the democracy measurement people, we will see a great deal of concern about how much 'control' the party brass and the PMO has over those we have elected to look after OUR concerns. It is unfortunate that so few of them do not speak out untill AFTER they have retired from politics, perhaps the following gives a clue, they are more interested in not loosing their perks that in returning the institution to what it was intended to be - “a body in which the Prime Minister is only the first among EQUALS!

“The book offers a glimpse into the tightly controlled Conservative caucus, where backbenchers are given little say and punished – a relocated office, a less desirable committee, the cancelling of travel junkets – for stepping out of line. Mr. Rathgeber was formerly an Alberta MLA under Premier Ralph Klein, whose caucus voted on bills before they were tabled, he writes. Under Mr. Harper, the Conservative caucus is more of a pep rally and doesn’t include votes. Instead, there are “caucus advisory committees” open to Conservative MPs – but their meeting schedules aren’t published, Mr. Rathgeber writes.”

All this is old news, there is one MP who has been warning us of the fragility of our democracy and of the dangers of centralizing power in the PMO for years. Elizabeth May wrote the book on the Crisis In Canadian Democracy back in 2009 before she was elected to the House, her book Losing Confidence: Power, Politics And The Crisis In Canadian Democracy serves to outline how little has been done over the ensuing years to stop the decline.


You may compare her book with Tragedy In The Commons, by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan (of Samara), all these book detail a parliamentary system that is in deep trouble in large part due to the thirst for absolute power by political parties of all stripes and the gradual elimination or disregard of any rules that may limit their power.


There is one small glimmer of hope in the about to be voted upon 'The Reform Act' which was introduced nine months ago as a private member’s bill by Conservative MP Michael Chong. It is far from all that is needed but is a tiny step in the right direction, you may find out more about it over at Samara and send letters to your MP to support it via LeadNow. Unfortunately Mr Chong is proposing even further weakening of the legislation presumably to make it more palatable for his Con colleagues.


I will leave you with this though from Mr Rathgeber in referring to some recent events concerning the PMO
“Leaders lead, they do not perpetually search for scapegoats,”
One might add that good leaders protect democracy not destroy it!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Real Outsiders – Disengaged Citizens.

Having finally gotten around to reading Samara's report The Real Outsiders: Politically Disengaged Views on Politics and Democracy, published late last year I will give a brief synopsis of their findings along with my reaction to their findings. In their focus groups from a variety of social economic backgrounds they compared those who considered themselves 'engaged' in politics with those who did not , not surprisingly both groups indicated frustration with both politicians in general and with government bureaucracy specifically. Most of my extracts and comments will focus upon those who feel that neither of the above are serving them well and who have thus become 'disengaged'.

Two main themes seem to run through the responses, firstly 

 

“We are too busy with our own lives.”

“nine times out of ten I just have so much other crap on my plate.”

“I have a job. I got school. I have friends. I don’t have time.”

“I don’t feel I have a role in politics”

“the best way for me [to cope] is just not to care about them.” 

This is understandable, particularly for those for whom it is a daily struggle just to keep their head above water, in an earlier post I looked at how income affected democracy, here then is yet another possibility, those struggling to make ends meet, working long hours, looking after family and so on simply don’t have the time or inclination to follow the daily shenanigans of whatever party is currently in power. The little sound bites that the spin machines produce that they catch on the news are their sole exposure to our “political system”. No wonder so many are cynical, turned off and less than knowledgeable about our democracy and its governance.

Secondly “why should I care for the system if the system doesn’t care for me?” In the

end, many expressed feelings of fatigue. They were tired of having to “fight all the time to be

heard.”

“When a problem arose that

required government assistance—be it finding

a job, securing a daycare spot, or addressing

overcrowded schools—they expected little of

their politicians and little of their government.

Importantly, when disengaged participants

experienced difficulty with the system, there

was little conceptual separation between the

role of civil servants and the role of politicians.”

Perhaps this is the most revealing part of this study, that for many folks government programs and the difficulties in obtaining answers or assistance is directly linked to the political side of things and the local MP or MPP is often viewed as the front door to such things.

For most of the people we spoke to, government

was synonymous with politics. Thus a negative

experience in accessing government services

or receiving poor service from the office of a

Member of Parliament were equally likely to

shape an individual’s negative perception of

the political system.

In theory our members of parliament are not there to guide us through the government maze but to represent us during decisions being made on our behalf in the various legislatures, in practice the complexity of ever changing government programs and the often uncaring response we get from some departments means that we NEED someone to help us through the maze. Our local MP or MPP seems to be the place of last resort in such struggles. That is not how it is supposed to work but that is how it IS working. When such effort fail is it little wonder that folks blame the politician or the system equally and are 'turned off' politics.

In a healthy democracy, the

political system will respond to the issues the

public cares about, in part because the public has

the ability to hold politicians to account for their

actions. Instead, we heard about untrustworthy

politicians and an unresponsive bureaucracy.

Earlier reports from Samara showed that even many politicians were unsure of their role in our democracy, are they representatives of the people or of the party or advocates or the doorway to government services. In the present circumstances it is indeed hard to tell whether they are all of these things or none of them. One thing is clear, such distinctions need to be clearly spelled out and the status quo changed to make them more accountable individually rather than as just a mouthpiece for their party, and government services must be streamlined and made more accessible to the public so that the MPs can get on with the job of holding the current centralized “government” to account.

Only when the public feel they are being listened to will they start to become 'engaged', perhaps that is why so many of us are being ignored?

Samara's Executive Summary says “(P)olitically engaged Canadians feel, despite their frustrations with politics, that the system does work for them. They believe in their ability to effect change. “

I count myself as fairly 'engaged' but I for one seriously doubt my (or any other non lobby group member of the public) ability to effect change, particularly withing the increasingly oligarchical system of governance we are seeing of late.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Samara Report – The Outsiders Manifesto

Samara is an independent charitable organization, founded in 2008 to study citizen engagement with Canadian democracy. Their work focuses on three areas: political leadership; the participation of citizens in public life; and public affairs journalism. They have conducted Canada's first-ever systematic series of exit interviews with former Members of Parliament in Canada and have released a series of reports that use these collective narratives to shine light on how Parliament works, and share MP’s advice on how our politics can be improved.

These interviews were shared in a series of four reports that cover the MPs' backgrounds and paths to politics; their transition to public life and the ways they view their roles; how they describe their time in Parliament and their relationship with their political parties and their advice, recommendations and best practices. They have recently released their final report in this series.

These are the four reports-

The_Accidental_Citizen

This report will focus on the first part of those interviews, where the former Parliamentarians discussed their motivations and paths to politics. It sets the stage for a larger series of reports based on the MP exit interviews. Our purpose is neither to applaud nor embarrass MPs, but to understand political leadership and the role of Parliamentarians in our system.

Welcome_to_Parliament

This report is the second in a series sharing the stories and advice of these 65 Parliamentarians, each of whom dedicated an average of nearly ten and a half years to national public life, acting as a bridge between Canadians and their government.

Its_My_Party -_Parliamentary_Dysfunction_Reconsidered

The report outlines how the MPs expressed embarrassment at the public displays of politics in the House of Commons, saying that little constructive work takes place there.  Instead, the MPs said their most important work was done away from the media spotlight, in the less publicized venues of committees and caucus meeting.

The_Outsiders_Manifesto

Canadians know very little about those men and women—leaders like our Members of Parliament—and what they've learned serving on the front lines of our democracy. MPs' experiences can offer tremendous insight into the successes and failings of our democracy, and yet they're rarely consulted about what should be done to improve our democratic process,

Below you will find a few 'teasers' from the final report, there are many surprises in these extensive summaries of the MPs comments and I recommend that anyone interested in our parliamentary system past, present or future read each of the four reports.

'The first area in which MPs focused their recommendations was the nomination process, the point at which a political party, in each of Canada's electoral ridings, chooses its candidate for the federal election. Many of the MPs to whom we spoke, despite winning their nominations, expressed discomfort or outright disgust with the way these decisions were made and the lack of transparency and local engagement in the process.

'Many said they were left to their own devices to determine how to go about their job, how to navigate the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, and even how to hire appropriate staff. As one MP put it, "Rookie MPs are, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the day after they're elected. Unless you've established the right contacts and you've got the ability to find your own way and ask questions, it can be a pretty overpowering situation."

Another simply blamed the leadership of the political parties and the culture of antagonism in the House. "It's going to come from the leadership on top. I really would like to see party leaders from all parties engage in sober debate, and not throwing the malicious barbs back and forth," one MP recommended.

'Several felt that the Speaker should be more empowered to enforce good behaviour. "To me the decorum should be simple. Run it like I did my Grade 8 classroom. Stop it and stop it now. You point at him and put the cameras on [those] who are causing too much disturbance, then let the people talk about it back home," said another MP.

'Many MPs claimed committees were where some of Parliament's best work took place, where MPs could transcend the inflated partisanship of Question Period and make policy recommendations that best reflected the interests of the country as a whole. As such, their recommendations centred on reducing political party influence over the committee process, and putting in place guidance to ensure committee work was better reflected in the legislative process.

Specifically, a number of MPs, including two party leaders, suggested reforming committee regulations to weaken the ability of political party leaders to replace MPs on committees mid-way through their mandate, a tactic used to delay work from moving forward, or to stop it all together. 
 

Several MPs were concerned that committee work didn't have enough influence over the legislative process, and that committee reports were often shelved without proper consideration. "Where committees have more power, a lot more things are going to get done there," one MP said. Another recommended that committee reports should be brought forward as Parliamentary motions, to ensure greater profile and debate of the work. "You spend all this time on committees. Surely there should be some way to have motions on your recommendations. But there isn't. There's just a minister who takes it and says, ‘Thanks very much, we'll veto that. Goodbye,'" he said.

Given the recent shelving of a number of reports from the Public Account Committee the latter three points are particularly of interest! We also wonder why these MPs all wait until they 'retire' before speaking out and if the current lot will actually do anything to improve things. Not holding my breath on that one!

Do visit the Samara web site and support their work to give us a better insight into how our democracy is working and how we might improve it.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democracy 'Satisfaction' dropped 20%

Its been a while since I gave Samara the democracy measurement folks a plug but a recent visit to their web site encouraged me to have another look around and you should too.

Their most recent report titled 'Who's the Boss?' once again reinforces what many of us firmly believe in that the ,satisfaction' with our democracy has dropped from 75% in 2004 to 55% now. The only surprise to me is that its that high but then there are still a lot of citizens not taking notice. Their various surveys also reveal that Canadians “feel that their MPs’ work representing constituents is falling short when compared to MPs’ representation of their parties.” and that “Canadians indicated feeling that their elected representatives often are not accountable for their actions nor do they pay attention to what Canadians think.”

Non of this is news to those of us who have been following the goings on in the HoC and the Harper Regimes latest moves, or for that matter the Ontario governments suspension of parliament. Certainly Harper is one of the most talked about politicians on twitter at #cdnpoli as revealed in their previous research 'The Neighbourhoods of #cdnpoli' even though he “doesn’t really engage in conversations with other Twitter users.” There is one MP that does engage with citizens across the country in the top ten however and that is Parliamentarian of the Year Elizabeth May who is #6 on the list right up there with LeadNow. Here are the top ten Mentioned Users in #cdnpoli (September to November 2011)

Rank	User	# of Mentions
1	min_reyes	2250
2	cbcpolitics	1860
3	pmharper	1749
4	leadnowca	1709
5	natnewswatch	1645
6	elizabethmay	1575
7	globeandmail	1523
8	beari8it	1431
9	wicary	1012
10	nspector4	954

There is lots more information over at Samara, do take a look and support their work on trying to get a definitive measure of where our democracy is now so that we can actually measure its decline!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Measuring Democracy

I recently caught Alison Loat of Samara, “a charitable organization that studies citizen engagement with the Canadian democracy”, on TVO's The Agenda taking about one of their projects, exit interviews with former Members of Parliament. Whilst it was interesting to hear some of the perspective from former MPs, of more interest was another project with which they “hope to strengthen the health of our democracy and encourage others to do the same”. They are developing a project to “measure democracy” something that, given that each of us sees not only the state of our democracy differently but even exactly what democracy actually is differently, is very difficult to do.

I am told it will take at least a year to develop the protocols to make such a measurement so don't hold your breath waiting for a startling report showing the decline which many of us feel has been taking place of late. I do hope however that you will support their efforts, for we do truly need a measure of where we stand in this regard. This all got me to thinking “how would I measure democracy”, is it the opportunity to have a small say in who runs the country, or province, or municipality, by voting for our choice of representatives in those particular governmental bodies every few years, or is it much more than that? Here then are a few suggestions of other measures that might be good indicators.

• How closely do the results of an election follow the wishes of an electorate as measured by the number of seats in the various legislatures versus the popular or regional results?
• Are smaller regions and minority populations adequately represented?
• Is the pre-election process fair and equal for all candidates, do large partys, incumbents, highly funded individuals or partys have a unfair advantage over independents or small partys?
• Can or does the incumbent government use public funds for partisan purposes?
• Is information on government programs, spending, decisions & policy readily available to the general public?
• What measures are in place to enhance, or suppress, information both public and internal?
• Is access to information proactive or reactive, how closely do statements by government and political partys match the facts?
• Are parliamentary processes fully documented and closely followed, how often are processes abused or ignored for political gain or idealogical reasons?
• What percentage of votes in the legislatures are “whipped” and how often are our representatives free to vote their constituents wishes or personal beliefs?
• Does the government of the day follow the wishes of the majority of MPs as per vote in the legislature how many passed motions are ignored or shelved by the government of the day?
• Are arms length boards and commissions free to do their work without political interference, are said bodies open in their dealings and decisions?
• How much information from government experts, bureaucrats and departments is altered or suppressed by the political arm of government.
• Are Ministers and staff available to parliamentary committees when requested and free to testify without pressure by the government of the day.

I am sure I have missed some measurable things that give an indication of the state of our democracy so please add any you feel may be useful to the comment section. I will then make the folks at Samara aware of them in their efforts to get a handle on this.

You will note that I put a great deal of emphasis on the availability of accurate information, whilst process may be the the thing that we have to do correctly, information is the thing that allows us to see that it is being done. As James Travers said just this week :-

“Voters and taxpayers are vulnerable in an information vacuum. They have little empirical protection from the spin that away from here is known as lies. We the people have no consistent means of separating fact from fiction, reason from ideology or imminent dangers from imagined threats.”

Is our democracy in imminent danger, its hard to tell, thats what this project is all about.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

MP's – Why are we here?

Recently Steve Paikin of TVO spoke to Allison Loat of Samara Canada about their second report based upon MP exit interviews titled Welcome to Parliament: A Job With No Description . The startling bit about this report is that the 65 former MPs interviewed, many of them having served for 10 years or more, could not even agree upon the basics of why they were there.

Following their first report, The Accidental Citizen?, this report documents the widely disparate and often conflicting views the MPs expressed as to the essential purpose of their role and what they felt they were elected to accomplish. They also acknowledged feeling unprepared for their roles as Parliamentarians, and said they received little or no formal training or orientation.

Here are some extracts from the report highlighting these troubling findings, remember these are based upon interviews with FORMER MPs and it seems highly probable that things have deteriorated in the period since these MPs first were elected.

“ Ultimately, our 308 Members of Parliament all hold the same essential position. Given this fact, we were surprised that the MPs lacked a shared understanding of the job’s key components, responsibilities and expectations. For example, two-thirds of MPs we interviewed spent at least a portion of their time in Ottawa on the opposition benches, so it came as a surprise that only a few mentioned holding a government accountable as part of their job.”

“A similarly small number mentioned engaging the public in determining the policies that shape our country and communities. Even those MPs who defined their role as representing constituents were unlikely to talk of such engagement. This raises important questions about the relationship between Parliament and the citizenry, themes we will address in future reports.”

“But, at the same time, most Parliamentarians we interviewed arrived in Ottawa with neither a concrete understanding of what they would be doing there, or how they could go about doing it. The MPs gave a wide variety of responses to questions regarding their role in the House of Commons. “

“Furthermore, our group of MPs was given almost no orientation or training, and was forced to devise their own means of preparing for the job. Their prior experience was seldom considered when it came to their legislative and committee appointments. “

“The orientation is terrible,” one MP declared. “You get there, they take you in the House, they give you a book [on] constituency rights and responsibilities, the former Speaker talks about being in the House, and that’s it. There’s no orientation. There is no training. There is nothing on how to be effective,” said another MP. “You learn by the seat of your pants,” admitted a third MP.

It is difficult to summarize the opinions of the former MPs on the above as they were so varied and contained few common threads, about the only thing they did agree on was the lack of orientation and how long it took to get up to speed, you will have to read the full report to get a clearer picture of what these views were. Suffice to say here that the view of their job ranged from representing the views of their constituents, their own views or their partys views; advocating for their local area or the country as a whole; proving assistance to their constituents or focusing upon life in Ottawa; communicating with those who elected them or having little regard to local views and many other far ranging diversity of opinion.

A small minority even said:-

"Collectively with colleagues, [an MP] must play a role as a watchdog of government activities, and ensure that the government [pursues] the public interests and spends money wisely." and “The House… as a place… to hold the government to account has to be rethought,”

The report sums it up like this :-

“Together, our 65 MPs used an astonishing variety of terms and concepts to describe the very same position. This immense variation should give pause to anyone concerned with the political process.

We would hope that MPs should be in general agreement as to why they are in Ottawa and what they are supposed to be doing there. Furthermore, Canadians should have an understanding of what to expect from their elected representatives. As it stands, it is not clear that Parliamentarians have a shared conception of an MP’s job description, which likely makes it difficult for the electorate to have a clear view either.”

Several Constitutional experts have said that the rules of engagement in the HoC and other constitutional conventions need to be examined, clearly defined and written down, it would seem that the role and duties of those appointed to the House need to be similarly defined!

.....................

Samara is charitable organization that studies citizen engagement with Canadian democracy. This project began when co-founders Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan learned that exit interviews, common in many organizations, had never been undertaken systematically in one of the most important workplaces in our country—our federal Parliament.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Frustrated Voter!

It is frustrating listening to all the promises as to what our politicians will do if elected when we cannot even get a clear picture of what they did when in power. With the previous government having been the most secretive and controlling in Canadian history it is hardy surprising that such information is hard to come by. With that in mind here are a few reports that may surface after the election and some that you can view now. Knowledge is power, which is why the public is kept largely in the dark!

Reports you wont see

Auditor general's report on G8 spending -

Industry Minister Tony Clement’s local constituency office collected applications for a G8 Legacy Fund seven months before Parliament approved the spending.

The funding, nearly $50-million in beautification and civic projects for the Tory minister’s Parry Sound-Muskoka riding, was brought before Parliament in November, 2009. A draft report by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser says the Conservative government misled Parliament by making it part of a border infrastructure fund.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/g8-funding-proposals-preceded-parliamentary-approval/article1982916/

Any report arising from the initial study of the first few documents relating to the Afghan prisoner fiasco :-

Despite a multi-party request to cough them up, the panel of judges overseeing the release of long-secret documents related to the Afghan detainee abuse scandal say a report and an initial set of documents would be ready for release as early as Friday — if only Parliament was still sitting.

http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/Parties+call+judges+release+Afghan+detainee+documents/4617645/story.html

The report regarding the Integrity Officers lack of integrity:-

Canada's interim integrity commissioner is the blaming the federal election for refusing to disclose a highly-anticipated report, making it the third document that has been shelved because of the campaign.

The Office of the Integrity Commissioner came under intense scrutiny last year after Auditor General Sheila Fraser issued a scathing report into Christiane Ouimet's tenure in the position.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/18/cv-election-integrity-commissioner-report-343.html

There are a few reports you can see and perhaps should see:-

First up Samara's MP exit interviews:-

Today we released the third installment of our MP exit interview reports. Entitled “It’s My Party: Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered,” it highlights the frustrations that former MPs feel about the way politics is practiced in Parliament.

The MPs said that decisions from party leadership were often viewed as opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional.  Furthermore, those decisions often ran counter to MPs’ stated motivations for entering public life in the first place: the desire to practice politics differently. 

Its well worth reading this report and the 2 others that preceded it if for no other reason than to see how little the Actions of individual MPs in the HoC followed their actual beliefs and how much power the 'party' had over their actions. Remember these are EXIT interviews, in other words most of these MPs were not part of the Rrcent government. We wonder how much worse it has got since these individuals left the House? We also wonder however if the MPs disliked the power the party had over their actions, why they did nothing to change things, but in fact enabled yet more abuse of our parliamentary system whilst in office by not speaking out at that time?

Then there is this one on the arts:-

On April 5, the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) sent the leaders of the five major federal parties a series of questions relevant to the arts, culture and heritage sector. We are publishing the responses we received in their entirety, without any edits or commentary. In order to facilitate comparison among the parties' responses, we have formatted their answers in a table format, according to each individual question asked. An empty table indicates that we did not receive an answer to that particular question.

NOTE - The Conservative party declined to comment on ANY of the questions, apparently they have no policy on such matters! I note also that the Greens were asked for and provided their position on such matters, nice to see them included in such dialog!.

http://ccarts.ca/en/advocacy/bulletins/2011/1611.htm

And how about The Parliamentary Budget Officers take on the F35 costs

DND maintains that the average unit acquisition cost of the F-35A will be $75 million—including upgrades and overhaul.

The PBO forecasts that the average unit acquisition cost of the F-35A will be approximately US$128 million—excluding upgrades and overhaul.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/PBO-DPB/documents/F35_QA_EN.pdf (700k PDF)

There are a number of other less published reports by the PBO that may be worth a look regarding other spending estimates, which can be found at -

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/PBO-DPB/index.aspx?Language=E

Also Mr Page's report to the Standing Committee on Finance back in February can be seen here -

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/PBO-DPB/documents/EFAU_20110215_EN.pdf

Also for those who believe that everything is just rosy and we can just carry on without worry, here is something that most of us knew instinctively and is particularly troubling for the thousands of Canadians STILL looking for work :-

Consumer prices rose 3.3% in the 12 months to March, the largest year-over-year increase since September 2008. This advance follows a 2.2% increase in the 12 months to February.

Energy prices increased 12.8% during the 12 months to March, following a 10.6% advance in February. Gasoline prices increased 18.9% in March, following a 15.7% gain in the 12 months to February. Prices for fuel oil and other fuels increased 31.3%, while electricity prices rose 4.3%.

Prices for food purchased from stores rose 3.7% in March, the largest year-over-year advance since August 2009. This increase follows a 2.0% gain in February.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110419/dq110419a-eng.htm

The first thing to do is elect people who give a damn about integrity, open government, the jobless, the small businesses that provide so many of the new positions, and those who would strengthen our social fabric. I will not say who you should vote for, but will say it cannot be someone who supports King Harper if you have ANY regard for democratic governance. Vote, vote for the person of your choice, but please vote ABC.

Remember if the information on your voter card does not match your current address you have until 6pm on April 26^th to change it at your local Elections Canada Office or you may be unable to vote. Go to http://www.elections.ca/ for more information.

Vote – Vote – Vote – Vote – Vote – Vote - Vote

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democracy Requires Dialog

So says my tag line for this blog and it is my belief that such dialog is fundamental to not only democracy and governance but for the good of society in general.

With that in mind for my first post of 2012 I will highlight a few of the various organizations, blogs and websites that are promoting dialog and discussion that I have become aware of in my internet travels.

In no particular order here are a few of my favorites, do take a look and get involved....

Progressive Bloggers THE site to visit for daily a compendium of blog writings from a variety of 'progressives'.

Canadian Green Bloggers Undeniably focused upon the Green point of view but you will find a variety of opinion here also.

Democracy Watch Duff Conacher has long been advocating for democratic reform and Government Accountability.

Fair Vote Canada Advocating for proportional representation and reform of our voting methods you will find much here about voting methods.

Measuring Democracy Samara Canada continues with its efforts to measure democracy by interviewing former MPs and seeking public opinion.

The Sixth Estate compiles lists of partisan appointments to various committees, boards and government positions.

Dale Smith gives us a daily synopsis of the goings on in the House of Commons with links to details and opinions on the subjects of the day.

Peace Order & Good Government The title of the blog tells you of its content, would that we had more of it. (Good Government that is)

Sudbury Steve If you can wade through Steves often looong posts you will find much of interest and more insight from a Green perspective.

I'm Political Nancy blogs daily about political issues, a great source for checking out what has or is happening on the federal scene.

And just because I particularly want to promote dialog within the rural population .

Rural Voices Network a new initiative from the Ontario Womens Institute to seek input from, and develop an online forum for those who live away from the centers of population and power.

The list is by no means all encompassing (you will find a few more in the side bar), there are new writers surfacing daily who understand that allowing a very few of the elected politicians backed by unelected interest groups and corporate big wigs to direct the dialog about our democracy is unacceptable. Only when the majority of citizens realize that doing nothing is even more unacceptable will the gradual erosion of democratic principals be reversed. Keep on bloging ladies and gentlemen your efforts DO have an impact.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Small Town Democracy

This week a number of observers have been focusing on the place and influence that the MSM, in particular print media, have upon our democracy. More particularly our 'need to know' what is happening in our various governmental institutions so that we the public can hold them to account and ensure that they are respecting our democracy and following the rules and keeping us informed regarding the decisions they are making on our behalf.


Much has been said of late on this subject and concern that the loss and/ or amalgamation of various print media is seriously impacting our ability to have accurate, in depth, knowledge of government policy’s, decisions and proposals. This week I first watched a discussion on this on “the West Block” with Samara's Jane Hilderman, I then read Lornes take on things at Politics and its Discontents and Kirbys follow up at kirbycairo . What more could one say?


Perhaps the best place to start is at the Municipal level, not my usual fodder here but how much closer to the electors can you get when looking at democratic issues? One of the problems I have with addressing this at the local level is that since the loss of local small town newspapers (or their assimilation by major corporate chains) there is almost no regular information available to the average citizen. Even IF one goes digging about a specific local issue the information is spotty at best. Sure most councils post their agendas (in some cases AFTER the meeting has taken place!), minutes (very basic, we discussed this and decided this) and if one digs deep enough perhaps some supporting documentation. Of public discussion (if indeed there was any), rebuttal and suggestions put forward by citizens (again if any) you will find NOTHING in the official minutes. There is nothing wrong with that, they are after all just minutes meant to reflect the decisions of council, however unless citizens were firstly aware of the issue and then took the time to actually attend said meeting these 'details' are lost and unavailable to interested parties.


The days when reporters attended EVERY council meeting and reported, even briefly, on such goings on are long gone (at least here in rural Ontario), sure when a highly contentious issue comes to the public’s (and thus the MSMs) attention it will be briefly reported, but beyond that our councils may as well be operating in a vacuum. This to me is just a forerunner of what may well happen in upper levels of governance if our MSM continues to struggle with how to fund their operations and pay their staff, particularly those 'investigative' reporters, The sad part for me is that I would fully support a small independent newspaper (on or off line) but in my area there is no such thing, there are a couple of small town weekly newspapers that belong to a major chain that print non local 'articles' gleaned from various contract writers and a few local 'headlines' but real LOCAL news is sparse. The corporate owned daily paper in the nearest (small) city on the few time I have read it was not worth the paper it was printed on, the total local content would perhaps fill a weekly!


Then there is the TV news that according to this report is where over 80% of the 60% who do in fact follow the news get their information. (Lorne has more to say on that here) If you live in Toronto or another city where a TV station is located you may well see a little local news but outside of those areas your community may as well not exist.....until a major disaster or some other 'newsworthy' thing happens to get their attention! Sure you will learn all about the latest bombing in Timbuktu but in depth news of small town Canada, not a chance. Our local radio stations are now rapidly becoming the only source of local news and generally speaking they do a fairly good job of that but even they rarely cover Municipal Council deliberations, in short if you want to know what your Councillors are doing you must either go digging on line (with in some cases very limited success) or attend every meeting to personally listen to the proceedings. Not an option for most folks.


Bottom line here whilst 'modern communications' have made it possible to have almost instantaneous news of events world wide, fewer and fewer folks are keeping an eye on and using those tools to report on what is happening at various levels of governance (and it would seem from the above report fewer even care) resulting in less accountability to those they serve. Will it become news by press release? Is this a taste of things to come in upper levels of government? In short I wonder if democracy will survive because of the internet or in spite of it!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers