September 12, 2011

"We the People"

By Wayne Chu

Last week, the White House launched a website called “We the People” giving people an online tool to file petitions directly with the government. Petitions that receive over 5,000 signatures within 30 days are guaranteed an official response from the Obama administration.

Petitions are not new of course. As the Globe and Mail reports, the White House has always accepted petitions through its correspondence office. There are also plenty of online petition sites out there. But rarely is the ability to directly petition the government advertised in such a prominent way.

The really interesting thing with this online tool is that petitioners are guaranteed a response if they meet the minimum requirements.

In Canada, parliamentary rules dictate that only a Member of Parliament may present a petition in the House, and the MP is under no obligation to do so. Only petitions presented by an MP are guaranteed a response. Even in prominent cases, such as last year when an online petition in Québec called for Premier Jean Charest’s resignation, a friendly legislator’s approval was required before it could be tabled in the National Assembly.

This is a process that even some former parliamentarians say is need of reform, as you will see on Wednesday when we release the next MP Exit Interview report.

Of course guaranteeing a response doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be meaningful or satisfactory to the public. And in many cases, a friendly MP can be found who will table the petition for you. But the new White House site does raise an intriguing question: Should our elected officials have the ability to filter who participates in the political conversation and who doesn’t?

The White House Office of Public Engagement, which is the department that is administering this new website, says that it is “the embodiment of the President’s goal of making government inclusive, transparent, accountable and responsible.” Coincidentally, this mirrors the ideals that our academic team has identified as being vital to the health of democracy.

But whether “We the People” achieves its goals or simply becomes a way to marginalize public political discussion remains to be seen.

 

LABELS: , , , , , ,

Comments (2) Permanent link to this post
RSS share this

Comments

Comments

Kirk Zurell

September 13, 2011 05:59 AM

As I recall, tabling of petitions is somewhat sacrosanct in our system: MPs who receive well-formed petitions are duty bound to introduce them regardless of their views or party affiliation. Of course, they give them the most lifeless pro-forma treatment even if they agree with them, but word would get around if they didn't introduce them at all. Let's hope that's in fact the case.

We're glad whenever politicians give us back some power, but our petitions (like "everybody resign right now!") are usually incompatible with our more general directions (like "peace, order, and good government"). We always fail to consider not delegating them too much power in the first place.

Wayne

September 14, 2011 00:56 AM

Thanks for your comment, Kirk!  I did some checking and it turn out that it is true that MPs are not required to table petitions they receive.  What happens, unlike the new site in the US, is that petitions are not responded to by *government*, but rather, a parliamentary office.

Maybe this is a technical distinction, but I think this does raise questions about the role petitions have in Canada in keeping government accountable.

Add comment




biuquote
Loading