Our democratic system is flawed (part I)

    The various forms of Democracy used within the western world are all relatively old and somewhat static. Because of this last characteristic, they are inherently flawed. The question is, is there a way to make the whole system dynamic, adapting through time? This is what the next series of posts will be about.

    Right now, in Canada, we have a parliamentary democracy. Similar to the situation in the US, we elect people to represent us in the government. The difference with the US is the idea of strict party lines. I do not know whether or not this is due to the type of democracy or if it just evolved that way naturally, but we do not choose our representatives based on themselves but based on the party (or brand) that they represent. Because of this, representatives are only given the mandate to follow their party line. The leaders have most of the impact even at local levels. I've seen it when I ran, sometimes, people who liked me wouldn't vote for me because of my party leader and sometimes the opposite was true. From the elector's point of view, it is simply to find information about the leader than about any of the lesser candidates. The party becomes a brand with the leader as its mascot and its ideas as its core values. This streamlines the information gathering process.

    The elected MNAs and MPs therefore have no choice but to follow the party line because this is what the people chose them to do. The problem I see in this is simple. In Quebec there are 4 parties in the National Assembly. The government's role is to come up with their own ideas (different from anything the opposition might have said in the past) to pass as laws. The 3 opposition parties systematically go against those while trying to differentiate themselves from each other. In the end, the parties are defined by one another. The party line makes sure that the same holds true for MNAs. Even if the Member agrees with something another party says and that thing would be a plus for his or her constituents, it will be tremendously difficult to approve of it if the leader doesn't.

    Like in any situation, the leader is also very important in this. In truth, a leader can set the tone and chose to follow his or her core values to make decisions, voting with the opposing party or against it depending on the situations. Sadly, this is not what we've seen in Quebec in the recent past since such actions makes it harder for the leader to differentiate their party, thus win votes.