There is an unavoidable friction in the relationship between an MP and his or her political party. For most MPs, this required a great deal of compromise—and left them with a feeling of anguish.
While a few MPs said they were aware of the sacrifices required by political parties before they ran, it was never a comfortable situation for them. “It was the challenge of deciding to become an MP. I’ve always been an independent thinker [but] the majority of life was governed by someone else and you had to adhere to the policy or [endure] the wrath of the whip,” one MP said.
But for others, this tension came into focus only once their service began, making their adjustment to public life even more difficult. Those first elected in the Reform Party felt this acutely, particularly as their party worked to expand its support nationally. “I think our democracy would be better served if parties were very principled and stuck to their principles. But the pursuit of power takes over the adherence to principles,” said one Reform-turned-Conservative MP. “[Party leaders would say,] ‘Well, we might make a majority, we might do this, or we might do that. We might not get re-elected if you speak out,’” said another.
However, some MPs pointed out that improved management practices could help alleviate party tensions. For example, two former party leaders said they supported continuity in committee membership through the duration of a Parliament to protect committee work from partisan interference. “I am a strong proponent of that reform. You are appointed to the committee and you’re there for the duration of the Parliament. That preserves the integrity of the committee system,” said one.
A couple of MPs did cite examples where their party leadership had clearly outlined their expectations. One Liberal MP mentioned being given guidelines for effective dissent. “[The leader] brought in three-tier voting. Tier one was like a confidence matter, such as a budget or throne speech [where MPs were expected to support the party.]. Tier two would be policy matters that are very important, and that MPs would be encouraged to support it. Tier three was free votes. And if we thought that [an issue] was a category one instead of a category two we could thrash that out beforehand,” the MP said.
Several MPs initially elected under the Reform Party also told us that they were given guidelines on how to prioritize the factors informing their decisions. “The policy was loud and clear. When it comes time to vote, you vote with the wishes of the people. If you can’t determine what the wishes of the people are, then you support the position of the party. And if the party didn’t have a position on that, then and only then could you vote with your own will,” one explained.
However, such examples were few and far between. Guidance, if offered, was ad hoc, informal, and usually sought out independently by the MPs in an effort to do their job better. Perhaps they were really telling us that political parties need to make their human resources management a much higher priority.
In fact, most MPs said they were left with little direction on how to perform their roles effectively, and it was the random and often opaque leadership of the political parties in the House of Commons that perpetuated a political culture dominated by aggravation and resentment.
If what the MPs tell us is true, then what happens to politics—and the public’s perception of it—when Parliamentarians themselves aren’t clear about their roles and responsibilities? This lack of clarity can cause—and most certainly exacerbate—frustration, partisanship and a focus on small, short-term gains at the expense of tackling the longer-term public challenges facing Canada. These are, in short, the very qualities of contemporary Canadian politics that alienate so many citizens, and can lead them to disengage from politics altogether.
Furthermore, without clear, agreed-upon measures of performance in Parliament, MPs are forced to fall back on what is the simplest and most immediate indicator of all—getting re-elected.
And as most Canadians would surely agree, at a time when there is no shortage of challenges confronting our country and our world, this is hardly a satisfactory indicator of success.