How Party Discipline in Canada Inhibits Democracy

How Party Discipline in Canada Inhibits Democracy

Party discipline is the capability of members of parliament from a specific political party to convince the parliamentary group members to support the policies of their leader (Lecomte). In governments with liberal democracy, it means that power that the party’s leadership has over legislative members. Party discipline does not apply to all forms of government; however, it is essential for governments that enable political party leadership of the nation.  And this is only applicable if the respective political party brings political, social, and economic development via legitimate political processes and strategies. During parliamentary votes, no one is supposed to break party discipline; however, if it occurs, then responsible suffer lack of promotion to the cabinet or eliminations of extra allowances like travel (Lecomte). Party discipline is vital for governments that enable political party leadership. By expounding on party discipline, this paper illustrates how party discipline inhibits democracy in Canada.

In most cases, party discipline means that participants of a similar party vote together when they are in the parliament (Kilgour, John, and Keneth). Party discipline came as result of the structured political parties. Since then, Canada has adopted the system as the vital factor in the political platform. The loyalty of the Canadian government to this form of leadership is critical since the system serves two essential purposes. First, it draws the political line between the opposition and the federal government. Last but not least, it enables honesty and ideological surety on which voter system can depend on; Despite all these vital political significances of this system, the critics surrounding the implementation of party leadership in Canada are continually growing. To be more precise, party discipline is Canada inhibits democracy. That is, it limits the roles and responsibilities of parliament members, especially in their capacities. What is more, it leads to vast political differences by drawing a political line between the federal government and the opposition.

Increased political division and decision-making processes that are limited to a precise group of people, brought about by party discipline, are constraints to political democracy. The party discipline system is similar to that of the federal state. In that, the cabinet must have the support of the majority of the House of Commons. Now this motion came as a result of the 1980s select committee’s convention regarding the House of Commons reforms (Lecomte). After the meeting, the committee concluded that strict party discipline like the one in Canada was infringing on the democratic right of the various members of parliament. As a result, the committee recommended strict that strict control was only essential for explicit confidence motions and crucial issues involving the central government leadership. In the long run, the resultant party discipline structure was to be one with more relaxed rules and regulations. However, despite the committee convention reform, votes from subsequent members of parliament regarding the improvement voted for strict party discipline (Lecomte); since then, it has been Canada’s core party system.

Party discipline in Canada is a constraint to democracy since it does not balance two different factors (Lecomte). First of all, members of parliament cannot voice the grievances of their constituents. Secondly, parliament members do not have the power to act or contribute to the presence of the federal government or the opposition. As a solution, members of parliament should experience fair treatment; that is, they must be capable of acting in concert; in any case, there is a parliamentary debate, irrespective of the identifiable opposition or government. However, there has to be a transparent form of consistency, discipline, and within each political party. That aside, members of parliament should have the democratic right to present the democratic needs of their constituents because that is usually their primary role; to serve the people. Therefore, the fact that the Canadian government cannot change party discipline structure to favor the majority is going against democratic principles.

That aside, party discipline gives excessive power to the prime minister and the cabinet; on the other hand, it reduces the members of parliament to ‘rubber stamps’ (Lecomte). In many cases, free votes are not allowed for members of parliament, with the notion that it would loosen the strict party discipline. However, free votes usually occur when the party leadership feels like enabling the process. By democratic principles, voting should be a free process that is equally available to every Canadian parliament. Given that all parties usually have the capability of implementing free voting process at any moment, denying free votes is not democratic. Although on rare occasions, free votes occur in the House of Commons, they are usually limited to morality and conscience. Ever since the early 1960s, the free voting process has been applicable a few times, perhaps below the number that is appropriate with regards to democracy. To be more precise: medical assistance in dying-2004; same-sex marriage,-2006; the flag debate-1964; right to abortion- 1969, 1988, 1989; constitutional amendments- 1996, 1997 and capital punishment- 1966, 1967, 1973, 1987 (Lecomte). From the disparity and rare practice of the free voting system, it is clear democracy in the party voting system is facing significant challenges.

The party discipline that exerted on voters in the House of Common is the most vigilant in the democratic world (Kilgour, John, and Keneth). Due to the sizeable democratic deficit brought about by party discipline, few political changes were implemented. That is, in 2004, there was the introduction of the three-line voting system, which functions as follows: First, the adoption of the one-line voting system where all members of parliament and ministers are free to vote (Lecomte). Secondly, two-line votes, here the governments evaluate all the possibilities and carry out the entire decision-making process. What is more, dignitaries like ministers of secretaries of the parliament who are affected by the final decision are later allowed to vote with the federal state. The other participants are usually free to vote as they wish. The last strategy is the three-line system, where votes are for evaluation and questions (Lecomte). In most cases, the problems are usually of confidence and very critical to the government. In this system, all government participants must contribute to the voting process. Since support for the government is not for granted, in 2004, the liberal government of Canada decided that the preferential voting system would be the one-line or two-line.

Conclusion

Political division and decision-making processes that are limited to a precise group of people, brought about by party discipline, are constraints to political democracy. Since this is the structure that party discipline is based, then it deserves strategic transformations. What is more, the founding committee of party discipline recommended that strict discipline was only essential for explicit confidence motions and crucial issues involving the central government leadership. Therefore, the structure of party discipline should be easily flexible to one that prioritizes the democratic rights of all Canadian citizens and not individual parties. If this initiative is achievable, then it will enable vast ideas and opinions through diversity, for development. What is more, if the party voting system is freely accessible, then the voting system will become less predictable; in the long run, there will be a maximum exploration of ideas. By expounding on the Canadian political system, it is clear that democracy is extensively inhibited by party discipline system in Canada.

Works Cited

Kilgour, John, and Kenneth McConnel. Discipline versus Democracy: Party Discipline in Canadian Politics. http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/discipline.htm Accessed on 10 February 2020.

Lecomte, Lucie. Party Discipline and Free Votes. https://bdp.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201826E Accessed on 28 June 2018