The limits of reform


Robert Asselin considers what institutional democratic reform can’t do.

Members of Parliament won’t be less partisan because we have fixed elections dates and politicians won’t stop lying because they suddenly have to be evaluated by a group of citizens.  The situation will only improve if voters start demanding a higher level of political debate and discourse, if more politicians start saying what they really think and if politics ceases to be a reckless partisan confrontation and spectacle inflated by the media’s appetite for controversies to feed its ravenous 24 hours news cycle.


The limits of reform

  1. I’ve been thinking a lot about AV and PR in the last week or so, and where before I was fairly good with either one, now I think AV would be bad for women–or at the least just as bad as FPTP.  Because the beauty of MMP PR (the only one I’m really in favour of) is it would almost require a more consensus form of government.  As I like to say it, Consensus as the first resort, adversarial as the last resort.  And when I asked myself “what would the ideal democracy look like to you” which I did on Monday, I realized that I would prefer a more consensual democracy than what we’ve got now.  And not *just* because consensual sounds sexy.  Oh, connecting thoughts, and I think more women would run to be an MP if they weren’t going to be attacked every time they opened their mouth.

Sign in to comment.