Every political caucus expulsion is a tragedy to our democracy
By expelling dissenters in his caucus, Kenney reinforces the Canadian political tradition of strict party discipline to the detriment of the representative system
A couple days ago, Premier Jason Kenney expelled MLAs Todd Loewen and Drew Barnes — two prominent critics of Kenney — after they called for his resignation. The two MLAs viewed the COVID-19 restrictions as too strict and criticized Kenney’s domineering leadership over the UCP caucus. So, at first glance, this may be heralded as a win for pro-restriction politics. But even if one is the most ardent supporter of public health measures against the pandemic or an anti-lockdown champion, regardless of political leanings, it is important to remember that every caucus expulsion is a tragedy to Canadian democracy. There is a difference between periodically electing representatives and periodically electing Supreme Leaders. This time is as good as any to consider ditching the practice of political expulsions.
It seems inherent to Canadian political tradition, that party members are seen as extensions of their leader’s will. Recalling past expulsions, it is hard to conclude otherwise, ranging from Premier Doug Ford’s expulsion of MPPs Roman Baber and Belinda Karahalios for criticizing lockdowns and refusing to extend the Premier’s emergency powers respectively, to Party Leader Erin O’Toole’s expulsion of MP Derek Sloan for being extreme, to the more infamous Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expelling then-Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould for bringing about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Such expulsions greatly damage the integrity of our democracy. It is no wonder that Canada has the strictest party discipline compared to other democracies, with a powerful chilling effect as the silencing of anyone’s political career.
In contrast to our fraternal neighbour, America, Canadian representatives are less independent and more sycophantic. Whereas here politicians almost always vote with their leader and rarely criticize them, down south, representatives are more rebellious. There, it is actually possible for the opposition party to pass a bill through bipartisanship. There, it is actually possible for the incumbent’s bills to be defeated at the legislature. There, individual initiatives actually pass and representatives freely criticize their leaders. When considering aspects of a healthy and functional democracy, in this respect, the American system seems preferable to the Canadian one. That is because there the influence of parties (affiliation, fundraising, advertisement, connections, and even party privileges) is weakened through their decentralized primary system. Nominally, Bernie Sanders is an independent, yet his electoral prospects are not ruined.
After all, what is the purpose of a MP, MPP, or MLA? In the most basic sense, they exist to ensure a responsible government, to restrain and hold accountable the cabinet by selectively granting their confidence. Idealistically, we envision three loyalties a member must balance: loyalty to his constituents, loyalty to his individual conscience, and loyalty to his party. Yet the practice of political expulsions upends this idealistic framework, demanding party loyalty — and, by extension, loyalty to the party leader — above all. If a member decides otherwise, say, by the weight of his individual conscience, he must be prepared to be kicked out of the caucus and thus lose any chance at re-election.
It is a deplorable fact of our democracy. Worse still, even when expulsions are not used, the threat is wielded to ensure obedience. Take, for example, then-PM Stephen Harper’s expulsion of MP Garth Turner after he refused orders to “issue a media release praising the Prime Minister for appointing David Emerson to cabinet” and “immediately stop writing” on his blog. When we cannot trust the word of our representatives, the ideal of a representative democracy withers and dies.
So, while it may be tempting to praise Kenney for kicking out “troublemakers,” especially if one agrees with his policies, we need to reflect on whether this political tactic is weakening our democracy. We need to shift this national discussion from a substantive issue to a procedural one. Every time a member stands up for his individual conscience of constituents against a policy and is expelled, less focus should be placed on the merits of each and every individual policy and more focus needs to be placed on the tactic of political expulsion.
Like most party leaders in our history, Kenney believes that dissenters cause “dysfunction” to his “team” for their “personal agendas.” As Barnes put it, Kenney believes that, “Instead of MLAs representing the views of their constituents to caucus, MLAs are expected to represent the views of the premier to the constituents.” But Kenney’s got it backwards. MLAs are meant to restrain the Premier in service of their constituents and their individual conscience. Why else do we elect MLAs? If we really believed that MLAs have no business questioning their Premier, we should end this farce of sending them to the legislature and instead just vote on the Premiership directly every four or so years. Otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of our representative democracy, we should ditch the practice of political expulsions.
