by Klaus Rohrich
august 23, 2004
a recent letter to the editor in one of the major dailies unabashedly stated that americans were stupid because they had only two major political parties, while Canadians were vastly superior, because we had four major political parties. The writer stated, that with only two parties, the electorate had very little choice, while three or more parties offered a plethora of options, which to him represented the essence of a democracy.
I was trying to determine whether the writer had failed math or logic, while in school, or whether he even finished his formal education.
as I see it, having two major parties strengthens democracy in that in any election the majority of the electorate prevails. If your choices are "a" or "B", then one can be sure that after all votes are counted, there will be at least 51% of all votes cast in favour of one or the other (unleass it’s a dead tie). On the other hand, in Canada, a "majority" is theoretically defined as 26% under a four party system or 34% under a three party system.
Of course in such cases, a minority government is usually formed between two or more parties, but that does not necessarily guarantee that the coalition represents a majority of Canadians, because such governments are based on the number of parliamentary seats occupied, not votes garnered.
I think this may be the main reason that so many Canadians spend many of their waking hours complaining about the government. as it is, it seems that the majority of our citizenry has a lot of resentment toward those in power.
While the idea of having lots of choices among political parties may sound attractive, it ensures that a majority of Canadians never have their way. In addition, the presence of the Bloc Quebecois (our fourth "major" party) puts an interesting complexion onto the national scene, because this is the party whose prime existence is geared toward breaking Canada apart. It’s a very real and serious threat, which serves to keep the federal purse strings loose and pointed into the direction of la Belle Province. It’s also an intimidation tactic that has hurt us in the past and continues to do so.
Why else would we elect a long line of Prime Ministers from Quebec, if not in an effort to appease Quebecers to remain in confederation?
I believe that one of the defining characteristics between americans and Canadians is the fact that the americans have a long-standing commitment to two political parties. The strength of that system is something they teach their children in school. On the other hand, Canada’s ethnic and geographic differences have created a climate of unease among various regions and philosophies, which in turn has led to the establishment of numerous parties. The most obvious of these is the Bloc. The fact that they formed the official opposition in October 1995 is illustrative of how degrading to democracy more than two parties can be.
When the Reform Party was formed as a splinter of the Progressive Conservative Party, it further diffused the electorate and ensured a virtual Liberal dynasty. Interestingly, Reform, and later the Canadian alliance, became a "western" party with little or no support east of Saskatchewan. However, in 1997 the alliance did manage to become the official opposition with about 25% of the vote. When the old Progressive Conservatives finally saw the handwriting on the wall and agreed to merge with the alliance, it decreased the number of major parties in Canada from five to four.
While this does nothing toward making Canada more of a democracy it brings us a step closer.
I personally prefer the american-style two party system, as it serves to make that country a melting pot, as opposed to the multicultural salad we enjoy north of the 49th parallel. Like the two-party system, the melting pot serves to unify americans, while multiculturalism Balkanizes us into hyphen-Canadians.
During the last election we heard Paul Martin and his Liberal menagerie talking a lot about minorities being oppressed by the majority. That’s an interesting way of looking at our country and a sure-fire method of keeping us all apart. If we are all more concerned with defining what kind of Canadian we are, be it French-Canadian, arab-Canadian, female-Canadian or gay-Canadian, then our prime focus is more on the first word than the second. My guess is that many of our political elites prefer this because it is easier to garner votes from special interests, than from a population that judges you by what you do or have done. a case in point is the most recent election, where the electorate voted for the devils they knew, rather than the devils they didn’t. This trend was in no small way, possible because of Liberal fear-mongering among the hyphenated Canadians, rather than just appealing to Canadians as a whole nation.
Thus the fear mongering about the Conservatives and abortions, gay issues, ethnic diversity and favouritism to business paid off in that the liberals managed to squeeze themselves back in, albeit with a minority. Ironically, in the process they created yet another sub-group that feels hard done by- Western-Canadian, with the alberta Separation Party as hard evidence.
The americans pretty well have the same challenges that we do with ethnic-americans, gay people, feminists, etc, yet they still manage to function with only two major parties. as a country we would be well advised to consider adoption of the american model of two parties, as I believe it would serve to make Canada more cohesive.