The Written Word
for April 25, 2001

I consider myself a democrat – something of a rarity in Canada where we seem to thrive on kingly rule both in our provinces and at the federal level. We don’t have any legislatures in Canada, just talk shops where there is a semblance of free speech permitted before the Prime Minister or Premier does whatever he damn well pleases. But because I’m a democrat and understand how we are not a democracy I must take a most undemocratic step.

Let’s do a cursory examination of how a republican system works and how our parliamentary system doesn’t. In the United States the heads of the two major parties – and the minor ones for that matter – are elected by the members of that party. When the leader is selected he becomes the presidential candidate of that party and if elected, stands alone as leading the executive branch and beholden to no one but the people.
In the Canadian way of doing things, unlike the American way, the leader of a political party is head of his parliamentary caucus. He may or may not have the confidence of that caucus when he takes over and if he loses that confidence, the caucus are stuck with him.

The question of how to remove a leader in our system is a difficult one. Because the president of the United States has no caucus to trouble himself with, and because he holds a statutory position, he cannot be removed by the party except at their quadrennial convention. He can, however otherwise be removed in three ways – the effluxion of time, by impeachment or by failing to get a repeat nomination.

The president, of course, has no party to lead in any meaningful way. The Canadian leader not only leads the party, he is their ongoing general in the trench wars of parliament.

I believe in the right of the party rank and file to choose their leader but I fear that because we don’t live in a democracy this may be impractical. Because the president doesn’t lead his party in the trenches – that’s done by the House and Senate leaders, there’s no need for the party to deal with him except at Convention time. But since the Canadian leader must constantly lead his troops it seems obvious to me that the policy of the Conservative Party in Britain makes sense. They have annual reviews of the leader but by the caucus. If the caucus has problems with the leader, as the British Tories did in 1991, they simply hold a vote amongst the caucus. In 1991 Margaret Thatcher was forced out, John Major took her place and the Tories won the next election.

Applying the American system for selection a leader to the Canadian scene leads to the problem where a large portion, even a majority, of caucus can want the leader removed but be powerless to do so. This leads to the situation facing the Tories under Joe Clark from 1981-83 where the dissension on the ranks not only hurt the party’s ability to oppose but created a lack of confidence amongst the public in the party and the leader. The Canadian Alliance faces the same with Stockwell Day.

Undemocratic to take the direct control of the leader from the party rank and file?

You bet.

But under our system this is the only practical way the parliamentary party, the caucus, can keep or appoint a leader they feel they can follow.