False promises at election time
by Giuseppe Gori

It is almost traditional at election time in Ontario, for political leaders to utter promises of reforms and programs that have very little chance of being implemented.

As a result, voters' frustration and apathy are at an all-time high. High expectations for change, followed by broken promises have caused a drop in the voter turnout in Ontario to about 60%.

The most common comment we hear, when knocking at doors during a campaign, are something like: "I do not believe in politics: politicians are a bunch of crooks". You can substitute the word "crooks" with your choice of a number of equally or more offensive synonyms.

There is obviously a relation between maintaining one's word and "trust".

It is not true, I hope, that today's young people have become so cynical that intentionally would want to run as politicians to deceive the masses, or just for the power or for the pay.

It has to do with lack of moral character and with opportunity.

We talk about principles and morals as a very strong requirement to be representing our party, starting from a commitment to the principles of the party. So, I will not further stress the importance of moral character here. But what do I mean about opportunity?

There are two areas of opportunity: For a political party (and a party leader) and for a local candidate.

Let's look at political parties first.

For example, how could our party become more "electable"? Having tried with the same policies for years with limited success, it is very tempting to "switch mode".

We (Family Coalition Party) often receive suggestions on how to get elected, how to grab the public (media) interest. The most common suggestion is to "downplay" our pro-life and pro-family stand, which makes our party "different", not showing well at polls, not "politically correct" and not conformant.

That would be equivalent to suggest to the Green Party to abandon the environmental issues, if they want to be elected.

Of course, if a person was not so concerned about life issues or environmental issues, they could simply chose one of the major parties.

Why do we have a party system? Exactly to propose to the electorate various choices, consistent sets of policies, ideologies and philosophies that are shared by a group, a minority perhaps, but a relevant number of people.

When the number of parties is reduced, the options for the electorate are reduced.

In addition, even when multiple political parties are present, if most of them offer similar programs, that is if they all converge towards the center of the political spectrum, by following opinion polls or reacting to the latest media reports, then again the options at election time are reduced.

For voters to have the greatest amount of choice in a democracy, political parties need to have the greatest amount of independent ideas, and the least interest in conformance to majority opinion. (See: "The shift towards the center factor")

What makes our current electoral system exploitable by a party?

The current system was devised for a two-party system. The idea was for one of the two parties to attract more support than the other. The victor would govern and the other would be the opposition.

Winning is at the core of the system.

The problem is that government has taken over more and more responsibility, more of our taxes and provides us with more "services" in areas once covered by voluntary and charitable associations. Public health, public education, family law, "children services", welfare, industry incentives, public media, etc. Government has become bigger and more complex.

It is not possible any more to have just one choice: A or B, every four years to express the wishes of the voters. More parties have been created and more options need to be presented to the people.

Recently, the concept of "big tent" in a party, has been created: a strategic means by which parties try to attract more "interest groups" to their party than the opposition. But when a party is elected, possibly with a majority, what do the voters get? Your guess is as good as mine. The leader would probably say that he had the "mandate" from the electorate to act on a particular issue, when during the election campaign he has promised to act (as McGuinty did in 2003) on hundreds of issues, knowing full well that most promises were unattainable.

Even worse is the case in which the leader, having campaigned on some issues, once elected will introduce legislation that was not even mentioned in the party platform.

Finally, and unfortunately this often happens, a party can also renege on election promises and do the opposite. A party leader might be known for a particular position, but "change his mind" for "political contingencies" (read: to ensure re-election). For example, the federal Liberals, who had voted in mass to support the traditional definition of marriage, succeeded in running the following election avoiding that issue altogether. They fooled most voters into believing that they would support the institution of marriage.  After winning the election again, Paul Martin decided to "ask the Supreme Court" if the TRADITIONAL definition of marriage, used since confederation, was "constitutional"!

The point here is not to re-visit the politics of same sex marriage, but to show how a party can run a campaign on some issues and then do the opposite once elected.

In essence, there is not much relation between the vote of confidence of a person at the ballot and the consequent action by the party that assumes power through that vote.

If the electors do not see a relation between what they vote for and what they get, then they become disillusioned about the whole system, and rightly so!

The electoral system is the same federally as well as provincially. Winning is the objective of the game. How does a party win? You guessed: It promises you all that you want and tells you all that you want to hear.

How is the new system going to change this?

We already examined, in a different article, how with the new system a party leader does not need to worry about defending his own seat. (Yes, the party leader can be a woman, but I will continue to use male adverbs for the sake of simplicity). His seat, at the top of the party list, is "safe". The leader will work for the benefit of the whole party to communicate, as clearly as possible, the party's stand on political issues. 

If he does not do a good job, he can lose his job as the party leader. The incentive to lie for securing his own re-election is gone. Why would he lie, if this can be a negative after the election?

Surely he can present his party in the best light possible, but nothing forces him to cross the line between "good presentation" and outright falsehood. It is not worth his political career.

In the same way the party leader will check and direct his team preparing advertising and party literature.

Furthermore, since his seat is secure, his vision will be more long-term. As a result, he counts on constant support of a particular section of the population across multiple elections. 

Each party will count more on their base support and less on "swing voters". Why?

Swing voters are interested in obtaining something from the election "winner". But the overall total number of seats is not of vital importance to party leaders, they will not try to attract so much swing votes, but try instead to increase the number of solid basic supporters.

Party leaders will be less likely to promise one thing during this year's election campaign and another before the next election, as they would lose base support. 

What about individual candidates?

Local riding candidates will continue to run according to the current "First Past The Post" system. Why then would the new system encourage more honesty during the election campaign?

First of all, each local candidate is still bound by party policies on major issues. If they "go on a limb" and contradict official party policy, they stand to be reprimanded. Thus, if the new system has the effect of reducing false promises by a party, indirectly it has the same effect on all of the party's candidates.

Secondly, the reason why they run as local riding candidates is because they know local issues, they are probably known in their community and are comfortable representing their riding. If they were not interested in local issues, but were more interested in ideology, they would have likely run as party list candidates.

Party list candidates, on their side, in the same way as the party leaders, have a seat that is dependent on their long-term credibility and on their record. They will be less prone to cater to special interest groups, as this would not affect, or adversely affect, the number of people across Ontario voting for that party's list.

As per the discussion above, special interests will find their party and stay there. They will not seek the support of parties that do not share their objectives. Hence, all candidates of opposing parties will be uninterested to acquire their support.

Essentially, with the new system parties and candidates will know whom they represent, and generally will not try to steal support across party lines, but will try to present their policy as the best for people who are very close to their party's ideology.

There will never be a "guarantee of honesty" with any system, but the new system will at least not encourage dishonesty for the sake of a few more seats.

In the countries where more proportional systems are in place, politicians that "did not have to lie" to be elected and have consequently been able to maintain their word, are generally more trusted by the people. This translates directly into more trust for government, and for the democratic institutions of the country.

...Top