The Line is partnering with Lead Not Leave to provide credible arguments for why Alberta should stay in Canada. Click on the link below to learn more about the initiative.
By: Jared Wesley and Ken Boessenkool
It is a truism that it is possible to have too much of a good thing. This applies to direct democracy, which Alberta has been discovering in recent years.
Successive Alberta governments, as well as their political parties, have been moving away from representative democracy towards direct democracy. The former relies on elected officials to use their judgement and experience to make laws and policy. Direct democracy relies instead on citizens to vote directly on laws and policy.
“Letting the people decide” sounds nice in theory, but it simply does not work in practice for three reasons: scale, complexity, and stability.
First, scale. Governments make thousands of decisions every day that citizens simply could not weigh in on without either producing legislative gridlock or voter fatigue. The sheer scale of modern government requires that we rely on smaller groups — legislators, bureaucrats or semi-governmental bodies — to keep things running.
Next, complexity. Modern government also requires expertise and informed deliberation. It is simply not possible for a single individual, never mind every voter, to know the intricacies of subjects like cybersecurity regulation and monetary policy, let alone the interaction between these things. We need those same legislators, bureaucrats and semi-governmental bodies to dedicate their careers to not just understanding the nuances of complex issues, but also deciding which issues need attention right now.
Finally, stability. Direct democracy is subject to the tyranny of the majority against minorities as well as requiring voters to make binary choices, which tends to polarize without leaving room for nuance or amendment.
Nobody has proposed that Alberta switch entirely from representative democracy to direct democracy. But even modest moves toward direct democracy in the last seven years have done real harm. It’s time to roll those changes back, starting with the increased use of referendums, petitions (initiatives), and recall.
The first nine questions in this fall’s referendum illustrate the problem. The first five target immigrants by requiring “yes/no” responses. This allows no ability for nuance, no ability to make judgements on the interactions between these policy issues, never mind making these decisions in the context of an overall reform of Alberta’s immigration policy — something our elected officials and bureaucrats, not individual voters, should be doing. Putting these questions on a referendum ballot also removes the government’s responsibility to engage meaningfully with those who are directly affected by the proposed policy change. Beyond marginalizing them from the decision-making process, it villainizes them into silence during the campaign itself.
The next four questions, the “constitutional” questions, relate to things the Alberta government doesn’t actually have the policy levers, on its own, to do. The questions acknowledge this as they ask whether the government, “working with the governments of other willing provinces,” should seek to change the constitution in ways that would shift the balance of power or responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.
Two problems with this: first, in the last election campaign, the government made clear its intentions on most of these items, so they already have a democratic mandate to pursue them; second, the Alberta government can’t make any of these changes on their own.
This is why we believe the purpose of these questions is to provide additional motivation for Albertans of certain persuasions — anti-immigrant and anti-Ottawa — to turn out in the referendum. We’ll leave it to readers to interpret the alignment of such voters on the 10th question, on separation.
Which brings us to the idea that citizens should be able to remove sitting MLAs or initiate referendums. This power allows small groups of citizens — increasingly small under successive changes to the law under this government — to drive issues onto the public agenda for which the government has no electoral mandate and/or for which there is very little support outside of those small groups of citizens.
None of the dozen-plus recall campaigns produced any more than political theatre and distraction. While proponents argue they helped mobilize opponents and develop momentum, the principle behind recall is flawed. Our representatives should be empowered to make decisions on behalf of their constituents and all Albertans without catering to the issue preferences of a highly mobilized few. They aren’t just delegates of their base; they are trustees of the broader public good. If their constituents find their performance unsatisfying, they can be removed at the next electoral opportunity.
Petitions have similar problems. It is telling — and a condemnation of the principle of citizen-initiated referendums — that none of the 10 referendum questions actually result from any properly conducted citizen-initiated process. Rather, folks in the premier’s office came up with their own questions, for which they have no electoral democratic mandate. The petition process itself is as convoluted as you’d expect for an exercise involving hundreds of thousands of signatures collected by thousands of citizens. Legitimate questions around the validation of lists have plagued several petitions, the issues have ended up in court, and the legitimacy of election administration has been thrown into question.
In short, the last few years have illustrated the serious problems with Alberta’s move toward direct democracy. We should reverse those changes, starting with political parties and how they choose their leaders.
We don’t need to return entirely to smoky backrooms to decide on who leads our political parties (though that would arguably be an improvement on what we do now). But our parties should adopt stricter rules for who should be allowed to run for leader as well as rules for who should be allowed to select and remove that leader. Delegated conventions provide a greater opportunity to vet those in the room, as well as those at the front of the room; the recent implosion of the Conservative Party of British Columbia offers us a timely guide of what not to do if you’re trying to build a credible political party.
The government should reduce its reliance on direct democracy and strengthen representative institutions. That means restoring higher thresholds for citizen initiatives; limiting referendums to matters within provincial authority or constitutional matters where there is already sizeable consensus across Canada; and narrowing or repealing recall provisions. At the same time, Alberta should reinforce the role of MLAs by giving them more time, resources, and autonomy to scrutinize legislation, develop policy, oversee spending, and perform functions now farmed out to independent officers of the legislature.
Canada needs more Alberta, but we cannot lead within Confederation if we are distracted and divided. Direct democracy does just that, while stronger representative democracy can keep our elected officials focused and accountable for addressing things that matter most to our communities. The modest reforms we recommend will help tilt the balance back in favour of democratic representation, lest Alberta continue to be mired in grievance and factionalism in the years ahead.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent
To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.
Correct. It would have made far more sense for the first PQ government in Quebec to be able to secede from Canada without a referendum.
If you had true democracy in the candidate selection process - such as selection via US style primaries open to all - maybe there would be less need for direct democracy initiatives. Secret choices by oligarchs - family connections etc such as is the case now with suppression of any candidates who refuse to kowtow to the establishment - make a mockery of the pretense that elected provincial or federal representatives and be extension appointed civil servants represent the people and honor their wishes.
The article is a defense of the top down we-know-better that the great unwashed system of government in Canada. As someone said a few years ago, a slave that gets to choose its master every four years is still a slave. As the song goes “Meet the new boss - same as the old boss”.