Impossible party partisanships

Seventeen countries have governments that are non-partisan in the world, with some of these countries even going so far to ban political parties all together.

In Canada, only two territories are non-partisan and that is the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.

They are signs that non-partisanship exists but we have come to the point of our Canadian political existence where parties and political identities are so thoroughly ingrained in our psyche.

You cannot have a conversation about politics without having a label stapled to your forehead.

If you are for free health care you are a social democrat. If you support gay marriage and consider yourself an ally, you are a liberal. If you are religious, you are a conservative.

Political labels are automatically associated with the corresponding right wing, left wing mentalities.

Sometimes that even discounts opinions with cheerful little phrases like, ‘oh, you have to think that way, you’re a liberal,’ or ‘well of course you’re like that, you’re right wing.’

When did this become a valid part of the argument?

The fact that you are a liberal, or a Liberal, or a social democrat, or an NDP, or a conservative, or a Conservative, should not create an assumption that you feel a certain way about everything from environmental protection to government control on the economy.

One thing that I absolutely hate with this is hearing the words, ‘stupid (fill in political affiliation here).’

Everyone has there own reason for being aligned with a certain party, that does not make them stupid, just as your own political affiliation does not make you stupid.

I see this enough in Saskatchewan politics.

The Saskatchewan Party was created to be right of centre with the coalition between the Saskatchewan Liberals and the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives.

Covering the 2016 election, I heard enough about the slide back down the spectrum to a right wing party.

So how much harm are political parties doing?

This stops any of us from thinking outside the box or having that conversation with someone that is *gasps* ‘the other side of the political spectrum’.

I have been to Question Period at the Legislature and seen it on TV from Parliament.

There is no semblance  of unity in those chambers. I have seen better discussion and dialogue from people who are not trying to run a province. So what good is this possibly doing our government?

What if we start to look past the red, orange, blue, and green colours? Would we be able to have better positive political discussions?

What about starting this discussion from the individual level?

I will be the first to admit that I am bad for this.

I have had numerous discussions about politics and sometimes I have gotten out of hand.

However, I have also gotten to the point in my life where listening becomes a good option, too.

Now, from the other side of things, instead of calling me a stupid Liberal/NDP; I often switch between because I am basically in the trifecta of Liberal, NDP, and Green, tell me what you think they are doing wrong.

Give me fact sheets, and data analyses. Give me fiscal spending charts. Give me proof that the leader of the party kicks their dog. Give me something. Do not just call me an idiot and think that is a good political argument.

If things are not working then we have to fix it. One party cannot do it on its own, there has to be political compromise that is not based on party lines and whipping the caucus.

As soon as you are not holding the party position, this could be considered traitorous behaviour despite personal beliefs.

In an analysis done by  Globe and Mail journalists, Bill Curry and Stuart A. Thompson, they look at the voting habits of MPs between Jun. 2, 2011 through Jan. 28, 2013 and over 162,000 votes cast in the House of Commons. MP’s who break ranks and vote against the party line in favour of another party are seen as rebellious.

“Canada’s parliamentary system suggests MPs are sent to Ottawa by constituents in their ridings to be their voices in Parliament.” Says Curry and Thompson. “In practice, MP’s are far more likely to be the voices of their political parties.”

Also noted are the exploits of then-NDP MP, Bruce Hyer, who broke ranks so many times that he left the party after feeling he was being punished for doing so and sat as an independent MP until the 2015 election.

Even with his 8 year history as MP for the Thunder Bay-Superior riding, he was not re-elected with his switch to the Green Party and received 13.8 per cent of the vote.

So what exactly is the point of the party system?

Historically, party lines are as fluid as the leaders that run the party.

Party identity does not exactly translate to individual MP identity.

And going against the party can be detrimental to those who would rather listen to their constituents than toe the party line. And at the end of the day, are the MP’s not there to be the voice of the constituency?

Can we just forget the colour scheme so we can try to get things done?