Party discipline in Canada is a heated debate. As you may or may not know, members of Parliament in Canada are often required by their party to “tow the party line”, meaning to vote for the party agenda or more specifically to vote in a certain way on some votes. The different political parties however do not always force their members of parliament to tow the party line. That would be much too undermining, and disrespectful of base democratic principles. Even so there are many supporters against party discipline, who think that any forcing of members of parliament to vote in favor of the party agenda is undemocratic. Votes are divided into 3 different kinds of votes. The so called Single Line Whip is a vote where party members are not influenced by their party beyond their adherence, and attendance is not mandatory. The Two Line Whip is when attendance is mandatory but party vote preference is not imposed on members of parliament. And last but not least the kind of vote that has sparked the debate, the Three Line Whip. When a vote is a Three Line Whip members are obligated to attend and vote as the party sees fit. Disregarding Party policy may lead to expulsion from party. The integration of the word Whip comes from a party office, the party “Whip” who is in charge of enforcing party discipline. Three Line Whips are usually called on very important issues, such as votes of confidence, etc. Still even when Three Line Whips are rare they cause much commotion amongst some citizens that are not happy with this blemish on their shinny democracy.
Do you think Party discipline should be relaxed or even abolished? Or are you in favor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I personally believe that there should be no party discipline because party members are elected by the people to represent their electorate's wants. However, if there were no party discipline, I don't think anything would be passed in parliament...or it would take even longer than it does now (is that even possible?!)
I guess, all in all, I don't think there should be party discipline because MPs are elected to represent those who elected them because that is their job and why that particular MP was elected. Therefore, I think that if an MP truly knows his/her particular and understands that the majority of them would be opposed to something the MPs party was proposing, then I think that MP should be allowed to make his/her decision based on the wants of his/her voters. Not because the party wants to pass new legislation.
Just my opinion!
Erin
The balance that needs to be found here is between an efficient legislature and an increasingly representative democracy. Erin’s comment is very accurate in saying that party discipline does lead to MPs differing from what their electorate would truly want. The current system clearly has a heavy focus on party discipline that undermines the ability for constituents to have their voices heard. Regrettably there is no clear solution, short of third party involvement, because politicians will continue to support the system of party discipline that keeps them in power. The current system is workable and I guess only time will tell if any positive reform will be made.
-Chris
Post a Comment