Against Reform.

• Author: Levy, Gary
• Position: Book review

Against Reform by John Pepall, University of Toronto Centre for Public Management Monograph Series, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2010, 164 pages.

This is an interesting and well written polemic against a variety of reform proposals that have dominated Canadian thinking in the last half century.

The book had the potential to do for political conservatism in the 21st century what George Grant's Lament For A Nation did for intellectual conservatism in the 20th. Instead it comes across more as a half baked critique of several half baked ideas. Nevertheless there are observations and insights that deserve careful consideration from budding reformers and non reformers.

The thesis of the book is simply and elegantly stated:

We have forgotten how and why our political institution came to be. The media, academics, and politicians have a bias towards change, and the mass of people who are content with our institutions are quiet, while those keen on change will not be quiet. We are distracted by the spectacle of American politics. Most importantly we misunderstand democracy and, in the hope of getting what we think people want, risk the people losing control of government. (p. 3) Most of the problems stems from a confusion between parliament and government. Originally parliament had nothing to do with government. The latter was in the hands of the King and parliament was called to grant money and air grievances. Even when government became dependent on parliament their roles remain distinct.

The leadership, coherence and work necessary for government are beyond the capacity of an assembly of hundreds. The role of parliament, the House of Commons in particular, remains support and scrutiny. It can make or break a government. It should expose and see rectified its failings in detail. But it cannot develop the policies, choose the people, administer the programs, and do all the other work of which government consists. (p. 99) Over the course of several chapters the author makes the argument that fixed election dates, proportional representation, an elected Senate, recall, initiative and parliamentary confirmation of appointments are more or less incompatible with the classical parliamentary system that he has described.

He is particularly opposed to proportional representation and no less than 5 chapters are devoted to this with a separate discussion of the Ontario and British Columbia referendums. Only one chapter is devoted to parliamentary...