A common concern I hear from the public regards the behaviour of elected members within the legislative chamber. Many express concern that the behaviour is not helpful to the process or to Albertans
How did it come to this?
I believe the answer lies in the unabashed partisanship that currently grips our democratic institutions. We have witnessed successive administrations bending and breaking various rules, seeking greater control over their message, over their agenda and over the news cycle. Opposition parties are often rightfully incensed at these antics, and level scathing accusations of impropriety, which ultimately reinforce the government's desire to control the debate. Partisanship inevitably snowballs under this adversarial system.
Things really go off the rails, I have observed, when governments go one step further and begin changing rules to suit their own purposes. Tweaking the laws governing our elections, or overhauling the makeup of the assembly must be done in an impartial fashion.
Fortunately, those who designed our parliamentary system included tools to maintain some sense of decorum. For example, to ensure debate proceeds in an orderly fashion the Speaker of the legislative assembly remains impartial, defends the privileges of all MLAs and does not participate in debate. In addition, the Speaker does not represent any party in negotiations, which are typically undertaken by each party's duly appointed house leader. Preserving the trust of the assembly is too important to allow the Speaker to play partisan games.
This principle of impartiality also extends to legislative committees, where the chairperson acts in a role similar to the Speaker.
Over the past several months, opposition parties have begun to lose trust in these committees. This is a direct result of perceived partisanship of government-appointed committee chairs. In some cases these chairs have prematurely cut off debate; in others they have acted on behalf of the governing party in media interviews. Recently, debate at the legislature's Special Ethics Committee ground to a halt after accusations the chair was representing her party in backroom negotiations with other parties.
Sadly, in this environment, one can only expect further escalation of partisanship.
Restoring impartiality to the committee process is vital. It would also be a good first step towards de-escalating unnecessary tensions within our public debates. As politicians, it is important for us to recognize that the legislative assembly does not belong to us. Like all our democratic institutions, the assembly belongs to the public. It should be a place where the best ideas receive a fair hearing, where public trust is earned through the level of our debate and the strength of our discourse.
Meeting these expectations is not a new challenge; every government in Alberta's history has faced this issue. Given the current state of affairs, however, I believe it has never been more important for government to reverse course on the politicization of the committee process or risk an imminent loss of public trust.
Nothing is more valuable or elusive than trust in our democratic institutions. Once lost, regaining that trust is measured not in hours or days, but in years and generations.
- Nathan Cooper is the Wildrose MLA for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills
"Fortunately, those who designed our parliamentary system included tools to maintain some sense of decorum."
