July 2004

CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY URGED TO RECOMMEND P.R.

(The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform appointed by the British Columbia government held hearings across the province this spring, receiving hundreds of submissions. The initial statement from the 161-member body indicated that it leans towards some form of proportional representation, and the public largely supported such a change. The Assembly will make its recommendations in late October, with any proposals for electoral change subject to a referendum in May 2005. We reprint here parts of a submission by David Lethbridge, a college professor from Salmon Arm, and a member of the BC Committee of the Communist Party of Canada.)

... I am here before you on behalf of the Communist Party of Canada, BC Committee, to argue in favour of a mixed member proportional representation system of government.

Our Party has for many years favoured proportional representation since such a system both strengthens and broadens democracy. Nor are we alone in that view.

It is common knowledge, and hardly needs repeating, that a "first-past the post" electoral system, such as we currently have in British Columbia, seriously distorts voter preferences. Logically it is possible, under such a system, for Party A to receive 51% of the votes in every riding, while Party B receives 49% of the votes. Despite the fact that the electorate was almost evenly divided between the two parties, the resultant legislature would be composed entirely of members of Party A. Such a system is inherently undemocratic since it necessarily ignores the political tendency of large numbers of its citizens.

Proportional representation, on the other hand, politically values each and every vote. In a mixed member proportional representation system with, say, 50 electoral ridings, there would be 100 members of the legislature. Fifty would be elected from the ridings in the present first past the post method, while the remaining 50 would be elected at large on the basis of a proportional representation of the totality of votes cast within the province. This would give any party with at least 2% of the popular vote at least one member in the legislature.

Under a mixed member system, voters would not feel as if they were "wasting" their electoral power when they voted for smaller parties since an accumulation of only 2% of votes from individuals across the province, sharing the same party tendency, would lead to their voice being heard in the legislature. Since each vote would tend to count toward some degree of political representation, fewer voters would feel politically disenfranchised, and voter turnout would therefore likely also increase.
No one, however, should be under any illusion that proportional representation, or any similar reform, will in any way deter or restrict the rule of capital. The democratic opening that proportionality represents can only be considered modest at best. Even so, better a modest opening to democracy than no opening at all. But the major and most important issue that remains is the sham of democracy itself under capitalism. The ritual of elections, under the rule of capital, strips power from the people more than it enhances it. The question of true importance here becomes, then: what is democracy? Clearly, democracy can neither be reformed nor improved until it is understood.

The British imperial system was declaring itself democratic when no one but white male landowners could vote; then it declared itself democratic when all white men could vote; then, later still, it declared itself democratic when all men and women as long as they were white could vote. So when precisely did the system become democratic? Well, whenever it said it did! It has always been the prerogative of the ruling class to claim, whenever it likes, that it is democratic. After all, who is there to deny them this privilege? It makes no difference whether there is systematic exclusion of aboriginals, or of those who own no property, or of women, or of the working class, or of any other category. Capitalism declares itself democratic on any basis that it prefers, as long as the wealthy exploiting class retains the reins of real power.

Consider the contemporary situation in BC. Certain fast food chains went to the Liberal Party prior to the election and said, in effect: "Look here. We want to increase our profits. Certainly these profits are already immense, but we want to increase these profits even further by stealing two dollars an hour from our younger workers. So how about it?" And, of course, no sooner is the election concluded than the government obliges and introduces the $6 an hour training wage, under which happy youngsters are trained to say, "Yes, Sir!" and "No, Sir!" and "Thank you, Sir, and would you like those profits super sized?"

Now such laws, and such corporate pressure, have nothing at all to do with democracy and everything to do with the rule of capital. So let's do away with illusion. As long as capital rules there can be no democracy. There can be elections as many as you like but there can not be democracy.

Democracy is not elections. Democracy is the day to day practice of working people, both employed and unemployed - who constitute the overwhelming majority of the people - in fighting to increase both their rights and their power. Ultimately, democracy is the exercise of state power by the working class itself - not through the intermediary of largely bourgeois representatives of entirely bourgeois parties.

According to Jack Blaney, Chair of the Citizens' Assembly: "This [the Assembly] really is power to the people." Well, no it's not. The power of the people resides in the governance of the state, or it does not exist. To quote Lenin, "every cook must govern the state." And I repeat: when the cook governs the state, not elects someone to govern it for her! We shall not have democracy until the working class itself is in power; that is to say, when the vast majority of the people hold state power, not when a tiny elite of wealthy big business and corporate entities hold power, as is the case at present.
Finally, if we want to come even a few steps closer to democracy, what is required of the Citizens' Assembly is that they recommend the following four principles:

1. Institute proportional representation, mixed member system.
2. Scrap the permanent voters list and return to a new enumeration of voters for each election. Permanent voters lists tend to favour upper income voters whose residence tends to be permanent, while frequently disenfranchising students, renters, the poor, and those living from low incomes.
3. Lower limits on election spending to curb the inordinate power of the wealthy class.
4. Expanded mandatory media access for all candidates and political parties in order to make equally available the political platforms of all parties.

© 2004 Communist Party of Canada