Politics Down Under

I recently read an article about Australian style politics that sounded like it would be so good for the Canadian public that there would be no way possible that Beloved Leader Harper would ever endorse it for the Harper Government, but if the other parties emulated Australia’s Federal laws, it may well change how Canadians vote.

Consider that currently in Canada, you can pay your $1 - $25  and be a member of the Federal XXXX Party which gives you the right to cast your vote for the leader of the Federal XXXX Party. If the Federal XXXX Party wins more seats than their closest rival, the leader you helped pick, becomes the Prime Minister of Canada until the next election or leadership convention when the process is repeated. The Prime Minister has no responsibility other than to a) the riding where s/he was elected, and b) … well… there is no b).

As Emperor Harper has demonstrated, this is HIS show (e.g.: directions to the caucus, backbenchers, and the media to call the “Canadian” Government, the “Harper” Government), and if you step out of line your political career is in significant jeopardy. People loose cabinet postings, backbenchers are ignored during question period, and private members bills are tabled for decades. Follow Harpers rules, and be awarded a cabinet post with extra pay, staff, a real office, a travel budget, and tons of other perks,

 

In Australia, the party leader is chosen by those with party seats in the House. After all, they are elected as the people’s spokespersons at the Federal level, so they are allowed to speak and choose who the appropriate person is to lead the party. No need to waste millions of dollars on a leadership convention when you only have to ask the elected MPs for that party. If this were the case in Canada, King Steve 1 would HAVE to play nice with the backbenchers in order to retain his throne. Dismissing them as mere peons (or is that pee-ons?) may well see votes being cast in the direction of an elected MP who (gasp!) listens to the people chosen by the people.

Gaius Julius Caesar ignored his backbenchers and Roman history speaks for itself (15 March 44 BCE) when Marcus Junius Brutus, Tillius Cimber, Servilius Casca, Brutus Albinus, Gaius Trebonius, (and 55 others) made their point 23 times at point blank range.

Would we see the PMO with a revolving door? Possibly but in my opinion, that is better than the Harper oligarchy we have currently in place, and cleaner than the option executed by Marcus Brutus and his friends.