A former CAQ member, Émilie Foster, who has become a professor, has launched an important debate on the much criticized “party line” 1. She asserted that this compulsory discipline “crushes” backbenchers. The Prime Minister’s response was quick: “Everyone must stand together.2 »
Yes, party discipline is a cancer that eats away at democracy, but it is also an essential democratic tool. The case is complex. Let’s try to unravel it.
Before tackling the question of the party line, let’s first settle that of the parties themselves: it all starts there.
From the Athens of Pericles, where democrats and oligarchs clashed, to the Rome of Julius Caesar, divided between populares and optimates, political parties have always existed. For what ? Because it is normal and necessary, when you want to change the world, to come together to defend ideas and, of course, to try to take power peacefully. This is the very essence of democracy.
Moreover, when there is no official party, as in several municipalities, there is always a “clan of power”, a clique, an unofficial political party, grouped around the mayor.
The parties bring these groupings out of the shadows, make the government program public, allow citizens to know who really governs, present a more transparent way of working. And that’s where the party line comes in.
Party line: why?
First. The Cabinet, the body of ministers, exercises day-to-day executive power. They are the ones who, collectively, run the state. To have the right to do so, the Cabinet must “have the confidence of the National Assembly”, that is to say the support of a majority of deputies, and this, at all times (otherwise it falls and elections are called). When the government has a majority, party discipline gives it this assurance, so it can govern. If it is in the minority, it must form a coalition to achieve this.
Second. The party line allows political teams to have clear messages.
Third. The party line aims to oblige elected officials to respect the program of the party for which they were elected (the parties moreover respect their commitments most of the time3).
The problem
Over time, these three reasons for having a party line have made it an absolute rule, without nuance. However, the nuance would be welcome.
In the real world of politics, MPs have responsibilities that sometimes contradict each other: representing the opinions of their constituents, respecting their party platform, staying true to their personal values, making courageous decisions (giving up a promise, because it costs more than expected), etc. Arbitrating between all these obligations is not easy, but MPs would have peace of mind if they could at least do it themselves. In today’s world, the chef and his team decide for them. Why do politics if it is to act as a green plant?
Moreover, the parties have come to regard almost all votes as a “test of confidence” in the National Assembly, which is absolutely not required. Indeed, it is not always the law or the procedure that determines whether a vote is a vote of confidence or not, it is very often a political choice.
The government can greatly increase the use of free votes, that is up to it. It would thus increase the freedoms of elected officials.
For example, former MP Foster said she was uncomfortable having to vote against a report by the Ethics Commissioner that blamed Minister Fitzgibbon. This is the kind of vote that should always be free, it does not involve the legitimacy of the whole government: it is up to the minister to convince the deputies to support it! In such a context where everything is a vote of confidence, the deputies, who already have almost no power, even lose the power to express themselves. It’s serious.
We will be told that the debates are “internal”. This is not entirely true. In a British-style system like ours, the prime minister makes or breaks the careers of elected officials. Contradicting him, even in private, is a high-risk exercise.
At Action Gatineau, my former party, we limited the exercise of party discipline to what was strictly on the platform. The freedom of the elected was great, because, in the council as in the National Assembly, the votes which relate directly to an element of program are quite rare.
In the beginning, the media systematically highlighted the divisions in our caucus. Over time, they got used to it. We had cleared a lot of freedom for the advisers, which made their work more pleasant and more meaningful. Another positive effect, as a chef, I no longer had to systematically arbitrate all disagreements.
The party line, like parties themselves, has its uses. However, the parties must moderate the use they make of it, it is possible, it is desirable, it is feasible.