CKNW Editorial
for July 9, 2001

Premier Campbell has promised a constituent assembly to examine parliamentary reform and, presumably make recommendations as to how we should elect MLAs. It’s the latter consideration I want to address this morning.

Let me say at the outset that I have no reason to question the premier’s commitment to reform. I believe, after all the talks we’ve had, both public and private, over the years that he would like to go down in history as a premier who made some real changes. Having said that I will predict that at the very most we might see the introduction of the transferable ballot and that we will not see the introduction of proportional representation until late in the decade, if at all. The transferable ballot, used in the election of 1953 and abandoned immediately, has the voter list preferences with counting going to second and third choices until someone has a majority. Proportional representation has parties putting forth lists with members elected off that list in accordance with the popular vote received by the party. Straight PR would have seen the Liberals form a minority government in 1996 and the NDP elect 15 members in 2001.

Let us suppose that a constituent assembly does meet and make recommendations in time for the election in 2005 – a tall order. But let’s just suppose. My guess is that there would be a recommendation for a partial PR, partial first past the post system. British Columbians need constituencies, would demand them and the Assembly would no doubt respond accordingly. But my guess is that the Assembly would also see the unfairness, the distortions that system produces and would recommend a mixed system. Let us say 70 MLAs, 35 from constituencies, 35 from lists … that this is the recommendation the government has to deal with.

Now … there is no point trying to marry past results to such a system in order to predict an outcome. One can only look to other jurisdictions of which two have just such systems, Germany and New Zealand … though in the latter case it isn’t quite 50-50 because there are four seats reserved for Maoris who vote on a separate list. The invariable result of elections in Germany and New Zealand is a hung parliament meaning either a minority government or a coalition. It’s not my intention this morning to debate the merits or otherwise of minority governments or coalitions – Nick Loenen, an expert on this subject made their cases very well on this show last week. My purpose is to look at the politics of this recommendation.

The Liberals have 77 out of 79 seats. That means they have 77 winning constituency organizations around the province many of which will be in the marginal state by the time the next election rolls around. In 2004, when this decision is to be presumably made, the government will have lost some of its popularity. The NDP just because this is how things work in politics, will be up to the 25-30% mark. One might also assume that the Greens will have also gained strength, especially if, as is likely, a battle royal is going on over the exploitation of our offshore oil and gas reserves.

Now Mr Campbell has ironclad control over his caucus today but that will have changed. You cannot have a 76 member backbench without some severe loosening of discipline. It is in this context that Mr Campbell must present the recommendations of the Constituent Assembly to his supporters.

Now it must also be remembered that the Liberals’ financial supporters in the business community won’t want to see anything happen that might return the NDP to influence, much less power.

The arguments for reform will be overwhelming in the philosophical sense. These proposed reforms will bring democracy and all those good things including dramatically reducing the power of the premier’s office, all of which we all want … in theory. But the arguments against reform are overwhelming in the political sense. None of the backbench wants to see their seat in jeopardy. None of them wants to see the certain loss of majority power. None of their backers in constituencies or in the province’s board rooms will want to see this happen either. In short, there is no way Gordon Campbell could sell these reforms on the eve of the next election.

So, here is what you’ll probably see. There will be no hurry to implement the constituent assembly. Moreover, it will not be asked to make firm recommendations but simply alternatives which can be put to the public by referendum, perhaps in the election of 2005, perhaps later. Mr Campbell will, however, bring in the transferable ballot under the guise of enlightened democracy … whereas it will really be implemented because in a first past the post election, which 2005 will be, the transferable ballot helps the Liberals.

The bottom line is simple – the cardinal principle of politics is that it is your first and perhaps only duty to get elected. This is the perpetual fly in the ointment of reform – no government will reform its way to even less power much less out of it. PR is for losers because it gives them, rightly, a proportionate representation in parliament. PR is not for winners because it makes them into partial losers.

If by 2005 we have PR in any meaningful form as part of our electoral process it will shock me, perhaps to the state where I know that I’ve lost it and that it’s time to scan the skies for flying pigs.