Understanding Canada’s Parliamentary System: Arlene Dickinson Addresses ‘Broken Democracy’ Claims

In a recent LinkedIn post, Arlene Dickinson addresses the public discourse surrounding ‘floor crossings’ by politicians and the resulting claims that Canadian democracy is broken. Dickinson clarifies that while the public’s feelings of disenfranchisement are valid when elected officials switch parties or seats, these events do not necessarily indicate a fundamental flaw in the democratic system itself. Instead, she suggests these reactions highlight a misunderstanding or forgotten knowledge of how the system, specifically the Westminster parliamentary model, is designed to function.

Arlene Dickinson explains that the Westminster system, shared with countries like the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, operates on the principle that citizens vote for a local Member of Parliament (MP), not directly for a Prime Minister or a party. The elected MP is intended to represent their constituents and exercise independent judgment, rather than simply adhering to a party line.

“The MP who’s elected represents their constituents and is supposed to use their own best judgment as an MP. That last part is super important and intentional. MPs aren’t delegates sent or meant to rubber stamp a party line. They’re elected individuals. The system was deliberately designed to give them independence.”

The Westminster Model and MP Independence

According to Arlene Dickinson, the ability of an MP to switch parties is a legal aspect of this system, not a loophole or scandal. She points out that such occurrences have a long history in Canadian politics, with notable examples across various parties. Dickinson emphasizes that these actions, along with other parliamentary procedures like by-elections, prorogation, minority governments, and confidence votes, are functioning as the system was designed.

Arlene Dickinson notes:

“When an MP switches parties it’s completely legal and has happened throughout our history, across all parties and across decades. More famous ones include Belinda Stronach, David Emerson, Scott Brison…the list is long and storied and goes in every direction. Btw the same’s true for by-elections, prorogation, minority governments, and confidence votes. These aren’t loopholes or scandals (as much as we all might want (or wish) them to be). They’re our system functioning exactly as designed.”

The Tension Between Independence and Loyalty

The post acknowledges the inherent tension between an MP’s independent judgment and a voter’s expectation of party loyalty. Arlene Dickinson frames this as a genuine democratic debate with no easy answers, recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on the matter. She states that the legality of these actions does not always align with public perception of what feels ‘right’.

However, Arlene Dickinson urges a pause before condemning the system. She poses a critical question for public consideration:

“Has my party used these same tools? Because the answer, across all parties, is a resounding yes. Every single one of them.”

Defending Democracy Through Understanding

In conclusion, Arlene Dickinson advocates for a deeper understanding of the democratic system as the most effective way to defend it. She argues that applying consistent standards, regardless of which party benefits from the rules, is crucial. Dickinson’s core message is that the system is not broken simply because its rules, when utilized by a particular party, lead to outcomes that some voters dislike.

As Arlene Dickinson puts it:

“Democracy is worth defending now more than ever. But the most powerful way to defend it is to understand it clearly, apply the same standards regardless of outcome, and refuse to be convinced it’s broken simply because we don’t like who benefited from the rules this time.”

Her insights encourage a more informed perspective on parliamentary procedures and a more nuanced approach to evaluating the health of democratic institutions.