September 6, 2007 was the publication of this, my first St. Catharines Standard Niagara Voices column. In it, I expressed my intention of voting for the Mixed Member Proportional representation model (MMP) recommended by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform.
(Disclaimer:I apologize for any links within any of my websites which may have become inactive over time.)
Sustainability is the central theme to which I want to lend my voice in the coming months, each column adding depth and colour to the bigger picture now defining our immediate futures; a challenge indeed as sustainability is loaded with misconceptions.
Despite its buzzword stigma however, the term sustainability best captures the priorities for 21st century societies.
My specific interests address more the social and economic disconnects preventing us from achieving societal sustainability; be that society a community, business, or even an institution. Of course for our (grand)childrens sake everyone should be concerned with ecological sustainability. Yet for most people, socioeconomics once understood, adds deeper meaning to the immediacy of changes our societies need. But if we are ever to achieve sustainability, every aspect of our 20th century societies must undergo profound, systemic change. That includes our systems of governance.
Reasons for electoral reform are socioeconomical, not ecological. Like most 20th century institutions, our governance systems no longer effectively serve the purposes for which they were created. Without systemic change their ineffectiveness and inefficiencies are destined to worsen, threatening their ultimate survival. In the case of our governments, they have proven incapable of addressing every major issue now collectively threatening our social, fiscal and ecological systems.
Therefore, come October 10th I will be voting for the mixed member proportional alternative electoral system proposed by Ontario's Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform. This assembly was charged by the province in 2006 to determine if provincial electoral reform is in fact justified, and if so, to recommend an alternative to the current first past the post system.
In reading the following edited passages from my official presentation to a panel of assembly members back in late November, you might conclude I am not completely happy with their MMP recommendation; after all, I had hopes for an alternative absent of party-driven elections and governance systems.
The current, exclusive electoral system fosters political arrogance, sense of entitlement, ideological confusion and divisiveness. Since our system fails to reflect the principles the assembly has presented, it must change.
I am opposed to any system likely to maintain heavy-handed, leader-focused, party elections. Party leadership distracts voters from candidates under their consideration. In past elections I attempted to visit candidate websites only to be redirected to party websites, profiling only party leaders. Since most of us are unable to vote for these leaders, their influences, which actually undermine the kind of democracy most voters want, requires downplaying. Party-driven majority governments prevent a flexibility of action, collaboration and cooperation amongst the electorates.
Should I vote for a politically challenged candidate to represent my riding because I want the more politically-savvy leader to become the head of state? Or should I vote for the politically-savvy candidate while ignoring that my vote could result in an incompetent, often arrogant premier or prime minister?
I cringe with disgust when public declarations by these leaders "having a mandate from the people" go unchallenged. Their names never appeared on my ballot! Until such time that voters can directly elect our heads of state, and our voter-elected officials can freely represent the issues on which they campaigned, we can expect continued decline in voter trust and turnout.
So why, you might rightly ask, despite those comments am I going to vote for the MMP system, even though it adds party names to the ballot?
Simple.
The citizens assembly, formed from people like you and me, diligently examined other election models, selecting one they deemed to offer voters fair and adequate representation. The MMP model could actually address my concerns.
The referendum ballot will NOT have an option like, "Electoral reform is needed but I prefer another." Besides, we might not have a second chance to vote for electoral change, and if need be, a newer system can easily be fine tuned.
The separation of candidates from party lists places greater accountability on individual electorates and parties. It is also likely to increase the number of independent candidates who will make a difference without getting lost in party politics.
Voters will finally see their votes more accurately reflected in the makeup of the legislature.
If the referendum is passed by a majority of 60 per cent, in 2011 I expect an easier time ignoring leaders who take political integrity and campaign promises to undesirable levels.
The severity of issues confronting our societies demand wholistic solutions in which our governments must play significant roles. If ever you felt them to be anything but effective, for our (grand)children's sake, vote for electoral reform on October 10th. For those reasons I know I will.
Bernie Slepkov is a community activist, council-watcher and observer/participant of the Smarter Niagara steering committee. He is a member of the Standard's community editorial board.
Disclaimer: The information provided through For Legacies' Sake is without charge as a convenience to visitors. Any reference to products, services, links and other information not produced by me, Bernie Slepkov does not constitute recommendation, endorsement or sponsorship. Nor does it particularly reflect the views and/or opinions of Bernie Slepkov, as an individual. I apologize for any links which may have become inactive over time.
