Parliamentarian's dilemma: party discipline, representation of voters and personal beliefs.

• Author: Guay, Monique

There are many reasons individuals stand for election to public office. But sooner or later all elected representatives have to decide whether to follow their personal beliefs, party discipline, or the wishes of their electorate. This article examines some of the elements of this dilemma.

Party discipline can be compared to team spirit in sports. A minister in the Liberal government of Pierre-Elliot Trudeau once compared Canadian politics to a team sport like football, hockey or baseball.

It is dependant on mutual trust, on close cooperation by all members of the team and confidence that each individual will play his role.(1)

Party discipline is also the unwritten rule that sometimes forces parliamentarians to set aside their personal beliefs if they conflict with the decisions made by their party. Dissent can be voiced in caucus meetings, which are usually held behind closed doors, away from cameras and journalists. Caucus is where MPs can say they disagree with a bill or one of the party's positions or bring up a policy they would like to see incorporated into the party's election platform. It is not unusual for a newly elected MP to discover with astonishment and confusion that there are greater rivalries within a party than there are between opposing parties.

Once the debate is over, the MPs have to rally behind their party's decisions; if they do not, they run the risk of being reprimanded. Parties can use perks the appeal of which depends on whether the party is in government or in opposition. A loyal MP can be made a committee chair, House leader, a parliamentary secretary or a Cabinet minister. Insubordinate MPs can be relegated to the back benches, refused authorization to travel abroad, thrown out of caucus or barred from running in the next election.

The Pros and Cons of Party Discipline

Advocates of more freedom for MPs say that loosening up the rules on party discipline would:

* lend greater credibility to the role of MP;

* encourage Canadians to get involved in public life;

* draw more strong candidates who would be able to garner votes by promoting their own personal qualifications as well as the commitments made by their political party;

* help restore faith in democracy among a large proportion of Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere;

* allow MPs to openly state and defend their position without sparking political and media controversies that are irksome to party leaders and sap energy that could be better spent on the...