After promising for seven years to repeal Obama-care at the first opportunity, Republicans in the U.S. have failed to follow through. Although sa国际传媒鈥檚 system of governance is different, the debacle poses questions that have some meaning here. A debate is ongoing as to the proper role of elected representatives.
The American health program, launched in 2010, is named after then-president Barack Obama, a Democrat. It was the first major refurbishing of health care in the U.S. for several decades.
However, while long overdue, the reforms brought with them unanticipated costs, in the form of rapidly rising premiums and higher deductibles. The chance for the Republicans to fulfil their promise arrived last November, when the party claimed all three seats of power: the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
But after months of wrangling, the repeal effort collapsed last week when three Republican senators withdrew their support (the party had a majority of only two in the upper house).
In sa国际传媒, the federal Green Party believes MPs should be free to vote their conscience without pressure from the leadership. The sa国际传媒 wing of the party has promised to give similar latitude to its MLAs, excepting votes of confidence.
The Canadian Senate has also taken some steps back from partisan politics, with several members declaring themselves non-affiliated. They believe the Senate should be restored to its traditional role, as a place for sober second thought, not merely a rubber stamp for the House of Commons.
The underlying idea is that office-holders owe their loyalty first to members of the public, and only secondarily to their parties.
While this notion has long been argued over, it gathered steam while Stephen Harper was prime minister. Harper kept his ministers and backbenchers on such a short leash, it often seemed they had no other master but him.
This appeared to many a debasing of elected office, and indeed of representative democracy itself. And it raised a fundamental issue: How far are MPs or MLAs bound to the parties they campaigned for?
The question is less urgent in the case of opposition members. They have more leeway because their vote cannot normally bring down the government.
But when a party is in power, particularly if it has a slim majority, different factors come into play. There is an expectation that governing parties will execute the platform on which they ran.
Those Republican senators who broke ranks would say they agreed with the promise to replace Obamacare 鈥� in general terms. They merely disagreed with the specifics.
But governing is all about specifics. And this is where the debate becomes more pointed.
On the one hand, we have a right to know what we鈥檙e voting for. If candidates for election are allowed to choose their own path once in office, political promises lose force.
It takes 44 MLAs to form a majority government in sa国际传媒 If each follows the path of personal conscience, the result, sooner or later, would be chaos. Some element of order and discipline is required to get anything done.
On the other hand, how are constituents to be heard if the politicians they elect to speak for them are silenced by orders from the premier鈥檚 office? Only 60 per cent of British Columbians cast a ballot in May鈥檚 provincial election. Fewer still show up for municipal or school-board elections. Perhaps the low turnout is a result of voters losing faith that anyone is indeed paying attention to them.
The answer likely lies somewhere in the middle. Governments that can鈥檛 govern get defeated. But so do those that won鈥檛 listen.
Like most things in life, the trick is in finding the right balance.
