In the US I think things are done more appropriately. They elect a leader, someone who the people feel is capable of making the best possible decisions for the country, and although this person is often filled with flaws and the system has its flaws as well, they have gotten this part right. No constitution lives for 200 years without some correct portions. The President then selects his cabinet from anyone in the country, not just the elected members of his or her party as is the case in Canada. In the US the cabinet is represented on an issue such as the environment by a Nobel laureate, in Canada we get Jim Prentice. When an economic crisis threatens to destroy the financial system as we know it, Obama consults with the greatest economic minds of our generation, i.e. Warren Buffet; Harper consults with Flaherty and presumably a magic 8 ball.
Perhaps it is time to consider whether the only people making our decisions should be the elected representatives, who fought hard and long for the opportunity, or whether they should only play a role in these decisions. Now, one could argue that the bureaucrats make all the decisions anyways and the cabinet ministers are just puppets, but if this is the truth perhaps we should be questioning whether spending a long time in the civil service qualifies an individual to make decisions on behalf of the nation.
I am not saying we need to do away with democracy; I greatly appreciate the work of all civil servants, even the members of the senate (I personally know how hard it is to write reports about marijuana and Afghanistan). What I am saying is that perhaps it is time we think about who is making decisions on behalf of this nation, I do not think that the most qualified Canadians are Prentice and Flaherty and I think even Stephen Harper would agree with that.
Is it a pipe dream to think that the smartest and most qualified people should be making the most important decisions facing our country and not parliamentarians who, although they perform a great deed by representing the people, do not always have the greatest qualifications (“My dad was an MP”, “I was the leader of the National Citizens Coalition”, “I have a well defined jaw line”, “I had sex with Tie Domi”)? Canada has had a Nobel laureate lead us before, his name was Pearson and that brought us universal health care. How bad could more qualified candidates really be?
I am not excited to fall behind the US when it comes to fighting global warming or promoting social justice, but it looks to be the path that Canadians have chosen. Perhaps we should try letting wisdom rule, maybe then there will be justice.
C.
Believe it or not, Cabinet Ministers need not be elected. Your history books will tell you that we've even had a Prime Minister who was not a Member of Parliament (John Turner). Also, up until the 2008 election, we had an unelected Cabinet Minister (Michael Fortier).
ReplyDeleteSenators can be made Cabinet Ministers, and perhaps this is a way to have Cabinet Ministers who are truly qualified, but never elected. (The case of John Turner isn't really a good example of what you're talking about since he won the job by winning the leadership of the Party, then promptly called - and lost - an election.)
Having said all that, for all practical purposes, you are correct when you say the PM has to choose from a thin line of people who are often more electable than qualified.
The assumption made by our system is that the Cabinet Minister is simply smart enough to understand and heed the advice of his top beaurocrat. Unfortunately, MPs tend to have huge egos, and a controlling PMO that often stymies the qualified beaurocrats.