Playing the Indian Card

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Emerson Affair: A Bit of History

Dear Abbot:

This David Emerson affair infuriates me. If crossing the floor to be better represented with a cabinet position is an acceptable move, then why not throw it open to the whole Parliament? After an election, the government could simply make a blanket offer to all MPs to join so that they will be "better represented" and to hell with what the voters decided at home.

We need a law that an elected member must go back to his constituents in a by-election if he wants to change parties. I heard Conservatives saying this during the election campaign. Harper's hypocrisy is too much to stomach.

Disgruntled


Dear Dis:

A blanket offer to all MPs to join the government?

Essentially, that is how the parliamentary system used to operate: the prime minister was whoever could command the respect of the majority of members of parliament. This could shift: one day it might be Neville Chamberlain; the next day, events might cause the majority to coalesce around Winston Churchill.

Properly, voters still do not vote for party or for prime minister, but solely for a local member. As late as 1974, in accord with this tradition, the ballot still did not include the names of any party. Until the last few contests, the British Conservative party held to the old tradition of deciding the leadership by vote of sitting MPs.

In Canada, to cite one dramatic example, in 1917, Sir Robert Borden formed a "Union" government with a Cabinet of 12 Conservatives, 9 Liberals and Independents and one "labour" Senator. Churchill’s wartime cabinet was similarly diverse.

Forcing a byelection before crossing the floor?

This was the position of some Conservative MPs, and many Conservatives, but it was not part of the Tory platform. It also seems to go against the parliamentary tradition, as explained above. It would lose us some of the flexibility that makes the Westminster system especially good in a crisis. At present, we do not have to impeach a prime minister, in case of malfeasance, or incompetence, or crisis. He can merely lose the confidence of the house. The Chamberlain-Churchill transition is an example of how this can be useful. So, as a counter-example, is America’s turmoil over Watergate.

As to the impropriety of switching parties: Churchill did it twice. Others who have crossed the floor include Joseph Howe, Ross Thatcher, Hazen Argue, Jean Charest, and Ronald Reagan. Were they all immoral opportunists? I doubt it. Perhaps Emerson is, but the action itself does not seem to me to prove it.

Abbot

No comments: