Thoughts on corruption and parties
The Journal has a quick look at the election campaign with a few poll numbers stretched into an infographic; the Toronto Star reports on a very recent poll suggesting that we’re so jaded we don’t think even Jacques Duchesneau could do anything about corruption here.
Here’s a thought. Maybe it isn’t the Liberals as such, maybe it’s the basic structure of our governments and parties that engenders corruption. You join a party and work and work to get into power, and then you’re elected. For four years you have a window where your level of power over certain decisions is so overwhelming that people will bribe you and blandish you to get you to make choices that will favour them. Of course they will, and of course people will crack, especially if the offers are of the subtle and persuasive sort that push previously honest people over the edge.
Here’s another area where proportional representation, with its more widely scattered distribution of political power, the necessity for parties to collaborate and compromise, might work out better for us. We may need to get past the ideal of the one big strong leader, and think more about a distribution of decision-making. Less pooling of power in a small number of hands means less opportunity for corruption to seep into the structure.
So much effort in a campaign is given to showy demonstrations of why Party A is better and different than Party B, even if we know intellectually that the social and economic facts are what they are and that the party differences are largely cosmetic, like sports teams wearing different colours so you can tell them apart on the field. And like sports fans, we pick our colour and cheer our side. But in the long run, this may be a hell of a poor way to run a country.
qatzelok 09:32 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
@ Kate: “For four years you have a window where your level of power over certain decisions is so overwhelming that people will bribe you and blandish you to get you to make choices that will favour them.”
One other anti-democratic feature of capitalism: money owns mass media, and will use it to destroy your career if you go too far in protecting the common good.
Mark 09:43 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
I’d be shocked if it were just the liberals. Duchesneau himself didn’t single out any particular party, and said that the corruption extended down to the municipal level as well.
The democratic system that we have here is now well entrenched. The paths of power have all been charted, and a good number of people know how to use them. You would need a really big shake-up to change that, not just switching out some leaders. The problem is, as you have noted, systemic.
One thing I’ve found myself thinking about lately is how 4-year terms really don’t encourage a lot of long-term thinking. It’s “what can I do now to make myself look good, so maybe I can get re-elected.” Politicians know that both good and bad policies will be forgotten in a few years. Maybe we need a system with longer terms but easier recall procedures… I really don’t know.
Kevin 09:47 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
Here’s a quick list of countries that have Prop Rep: Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia.
More countries on that list: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany.
Personally, I would rather have a system wherein party leaders do not get the final say on individual reps within a party. If you really want a roots-up system, the people at the individual riding level need to be able to choose their MP/MNA/candidate, and not have to get approval from the grand poohbah. Of course, the flipside is some ridings will nominate wackos, junkies and racists.
steph 13:46 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
First we should really get rid of the first-past-the-post system for a ranked voting method. Some sort of proportional system would also be good, maybe one where voters can cast two ballots — one for a constituency candidate and the other for a party. A strong leader doesn’t take a small majority to dictate everyone, but works to find consensus for all.
Jack 15:10 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
Quebecor seems to be trending for CAQ, lets face it CAQ’s economic “profile” pleases PKP.However he owes the Marois-Blanchet team plenty as they bought Videtron for him with our money( when Paulines husband ran the investment arm of the Caisse Depot, when she was a minister,no conflict there!). That deal of course was such a winner that the Caisse Depot had to write off only a billion and half dollars within months. When I see what the purchase of that platform for PKP has done to Quebec politics it is shameful.At least France David had enough guts to call him out for not inviting her to the debate.PKP has enough power to make the next Quebec Government and then will have to buy him a spaceship.
Adam Hooper 16:50 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
My gut reaction is that proportional representation wouldn’t solve the problem of corruption. Transparency would.
The first thing you have to ask yourself is, “what would it take for ME to accept a bribe?” It’s a simple formula: if {Expected Payoff} minus {Expected Consequences} is above a certain Threshold, then any rational human being would accept the bribe. (Here, “Consequences” include a guilty conscience, the “Threshold” relates to our willingness to gamble, and “Expected” implies that we can guess some kind of probability we’ll get caught or otherwise feel really bad.)
I see three solutions:
1) Decrease the payoffs. I can’t think how this would happen.
2) Increase the consequences.
3) Increase the likelihood that those offering or accepting bribes will face those consequences.
There usually isn’t much political will for 2): what politicians would vote for a law that implies politicians are gulty and increases the consequences? For instance, if most politicians know of a tax loophole that gives them extra cash, you can’t expect them to institute a new law to punish themselves. The more probable solution is to close the loophole, which brings us to 3)….
We know how to implement 3), and it makes for a good campaign platform. The solution is to ensure funds are allocated transparently–that is, with public oversight.
I feel we should stop pretending politicians are more corrupt than anybody else, and I don’t think political solutions are the best ways to address politicians’ personal choices. A public paper trail for all spending is something we can achieve incrementally. It would give the population the information it needs to vote correctly, and it would give our leaders the tools they need to perform better. The best part: with properly-crafted bills that incrementally bring transparency to new corners of government spending, there would be no rational reason for any politician to vote nay.
ant6n 17:19 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
Germany actually has a mixed proportional system – they get a person per riding, but the overall distribution of parlaiment is according to the overall percentages of voting for a party. They do that by having half the people voted in via fptp, and the rest from party lists. This probably results in more career politicians, but that’s maybe not a bad thing, certainly less bad than the rich politicians they have in the States.
I think New Zealand voted to have a similar system, but with fewer seats assigned from party lists.
Ephraim 20:18 on 2012/08/06 Permalink
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That being said, we are probably better off with the Hare system, like Australia better than proportional, where you end up with coalitions that are open to blackmail for votes on key matters.
A system with a lot more transparency would be more effective. For example, every meal that a bureaucrat or MNA has that is paid for by someone else, should have to be published. Gifts, etc. All on the Internet. Decisions that school boards make should be published on the Internet, for all to see. And schools that don’t have the required governing boards should be unable to pay bills, until a governing board is in place, to keep the administration from abusing their power. Just a few examples.
ant6n 03:05 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
Well, corruption is one issue in Quebec.
Another is bad representation. For example, right now, non-separatist progressives don’t have much of a choice for a vote — and that is clearly the fault of fptp. They are simply spread too much to get a majority in any particular riding, therefore they are shut out of the whole process, basically. With a more proportional system, ideologies would be represented better – and local representation is not as important as some people think, most people vote along party lines anyway.