All for none and none for all

As we watched the folks of B.C. elect a new government and as we brace for the return of the NWT’s 16^th Legislative Assembly, a friend and I were discussing the benefits of consensus government. It was a short conversation. In fact, the pros are greatly outnumbered by the cons of consensus government.

When I first heard that the NWT was governed by consensus, I thought it was a great system. MLAs are allowed to vote with their hearts and in the interests of their constituents rather than along party lines.

Nice idea, but in practice it fails on so many levels.

Every four years a new batch of MLAs are elected and they are all hoping to change the world in their own image, so they set out to tear down the old and bring in their version of new. There is no continuity, direction or ideology in the transition of power. The only stability comes from the returning MLAs, Deputy Ministers and ADMs (if they have the intestinal fortitude to go through with another term).

There is no clearly elected majority and no organized opposition. MLAs elect the Premier whom choses the Cabinet and the cast offs form the Regular Members -- but those can change as quickly as the political winds blow. There are no focused ideals or planned strategy for meaningful direction or change in the short or long-term.

Without an organized opposition, we see these random pot shots fired from individual MLAs instead of a thought out strategy to force or bring about change. The Regular Member may have a legitimate concern or might just be grinding an axe because they were passed over for Cabinet.

Consensus governance leaves too much room for backroom deals and corruption. The backroom lobbying starts right from the moment MLAs are elected. They are all jockeying for Cabinet posts and capital projects for their ridings. Any MLA will tell you the real decisions are made long before they enter the House.

The voter is at a disadvantage by not knowing the political stripe and philosophical ideals of a candidate. When you know what party the candidate belongs to, you can associate that person to that party’s ideals -- even if you don’t know the candidate personally.

The party system grew out of consensus government because it doesn’t represent the needs of the whole, but rather the parts. This is a very large jurisdiction with many parts, with many conflicting interests. These parts will never achieve lasting or meaningful consensus and to pretend that they will is only to perpetuate a myth based on emotion.

Functional democracy requires decisions based on logical facts, rather than ones based on sentimental or emotional dreams.