Premier Gary Doer has finally given in to academic pressure and has brought in legislation to impose fixed election dates in Manitoba. If the legislation is passed, we will have elections every four years on a fixed day in June.
The demand for fixed election dates does not come from the public at large. I have participated in many elections and have knocked on thousands of doors. Not a single voter has ever suggested to me that he or she would be better served if we had fixed election dates. Furthermore, not a single average Manitoban will sleep any better knowing that the next election will take place on June 14, 2011 (barring a defeat of the government on a confidence motion, which can trigger an immediate election).
It is mostly politicians, political pundits and certain elements in the media who call for fixed-election dates. For these, it removes mystery and speculation. Fixed dates would provide a simple solution to answering the question as to when the next election will take place. It is simple and simplistic. It will do no substantive good and could do a great deal of harm.
The philosophy of fixed-election dates is embraced by those who prefer that we have laws which specify how we are to conduct our affairs. Opposed to this philosophy is the idea that freedom works best and laws should be passed only when they are demonstrably necessary.
There is nothing to prevent Gary Doer from saying today that the next election will take place on June 14, 2011. A political analyst would object that there is no law binding him to keep that commitment. I respond by saying that he might change his mind and repeal the legislation if he feels there is good reason to do so.
The very fact the legislation can be amended or repealed proves its futility and inappropriateness.
Our parliamentary system of government, which is modelled after the mother of parliaments in Great Britain, has rules regarding the holding of elections. Parliaments do not extend for longer than five years. If the representatives of the people declare by a majority that they have no confidence in the government, there would have to be an election, dictated by common sense and not by statute. If the government in power wishes to proceed with a program that is being resisted by Parliament, it could go to the people to seek their support. What a wonderful concept!
This, however, would be done away with by the Doer legislation.
When Mackenzie King felt he could not get parliamentary support for conscription, he held a plebiscite. If it weren't for the war, there could well have been an election. John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson both called early elections when they felt that they could not govern effectively without a majority. Diefenbaker succeeded and Pearson failed, but the need for the government to canvass the views of the Canadian people was legitimate in both cases.
We have a parliamentary system that has given us a form of democracy which is unparalleled by other forms in other countries. Its best aspects are that its rules grew out of customs and traditions that were dictated by necessity and tradition and not the theories put into writing and statutes by people who professed that they knew best.
Our parliamentary system was pretty darn good as it was before the technocrats started to undo it by the statutory recognition and institutionalization of political parties, and more particularly by the rules regarding financing. It was not perfect but its flexibility ensured that needed improvement would occur as demanded by events.
The traditional British parliamentary system is cogent proof that as in most other matters, freedom works better than restriction.
Sidney Green is a Winnipeg lawyer and a former NDP cabinet minister.
PREVIOUS
