Tragedy in the Commons by Alison Loat Read Free Book Online Page B

the application of the rules. Procedures varied widely from riding to riding, and the process appeared subject to a host of idiosyncrasies, giving the impression that the party’s, rather than the people’s, favoured candidate was selected.
    The power that parties exert over the nomination processes increased in two ways during the early ’70s, as the result of a law passed in Parliament in 1970. Up until the 1972 federal election, ballots listed the names of candidates, alongwith their occupations—which provided a small personal touch. Although candidates had been affiliated with parties since Confederation, it wasn’t until that election that the candidate’s name was followed by an identifying political party. According to research prepared by the Parliament of Canada, the intention was to make it easier for voters to differentiate the candidates (there had been cases of candidates with similar names running in the same riding); and listing party affiliation seemed more in step with practices of modern political campaigning, in which parties and their leaders are often front and centre.
    It’s easy to read volumes of symbolic meaning in the change. Previously, candidates were individuals whose identity was informed by their job and perhaps the riding in which they lived. Once the candidate’s name was followed by his or her party affiliation, the candidate became an extension of the party’s brand. A second change further increased the candidate’s subordination to the party, as party leaders gained veto power over each successful nominee. Before this change, local constituency associations would organize and oversee nomination races. But the new legislation empowered the party leader to refuse to sign someone’s nomination papers, even if he or she had won the local nomination organized by the constituency association. From this point on, each candidate’s accountability was fractured. Whereas candidates had once been accountable only to their local party association, they would also now serve the party leader—and the party leader began exercising that power.
    According to research published in 2011 by political scientists Royce Koop and Amanda Bittner, these changes were embraced most enthusiastically by the Liberal Party, which amended its party constitution in the 1990s to give theparty leader the ability to parachute in candidates, or pre-empt local nomination contests and appoint candidates with little or no input from members of a local riding association. In practice, however, this power is used sparingly. Its ostensible purpose is to increase the representation of women or other underrepresented groups, to appoint “star” candidates and to protect incumbents from well-organized local challengers. Yet in 2008, according to Koop and Bittner’s research, roughly one in five members of the Liberal caucus had been helped through the nomination by the leader.
    It wasn’t only Liberals who had problems with the way the parties run nominations. The former Conservative MP for Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar, Carol Skelton, disapproved of the machinations of what she called the “backroom boys.” Skelton said, “It was one of those things I didn’t like about politics.” Her colleague, former Conservative MP for Kelowna Werner Schmidt, called the process “scary” and “frightening.” Inky Mark, a Manitoba MP for thirteen years, was scathing. “Parties are basically dishonest; totally dishonest. They lie through their teeth and manipulate their membership,” he said. “They take all they want. It’s a money grab. They grab your money. All the stuff they tell you to do is just a façade. It’s like a TV commercial.”
    The former NDP MP for Winnipeg North, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, called her nomination process a really “eye-opening” situation. “I think, even though you might find that the NDP is more participatory and democratic than the Conservatives and the Liberals, I think … when we are