Parliamentary Government in the Age of Populism.

• Date: 22 December 2020
• Author: Kaczorowski, Michael

The Canadian parliamentary system is based on accepted rules, norms and conventions. Populism denotes a form of governing in which the perceived will of "the people" can be used as a means to challenge the very rules and conventions which underline responsible government. In this article, the author considers the rise of self-styled "populist" regimes in recent years and raises questions as to what extent populism may threaten the traditions and practices of Canada's parliamentary system, and conversely whether the parliamentary system is capable of acting as a shield against the anti-democratic impulses of populism.

**********

"Everyone knows that on a large scale democracy is pernicious nonsense--a country or even a county cannot be run by a self-seeking parcel of tub-thumping politicians working on popular emotion, rousing the mob."

--Captain Jack Aubrey, The Yellow Admiral (1)

Captain Aubrey is the central character of author Patrick O'Brian's celebrated series of novels set during the Napoleonic Wars. Later in his naval career Aubrey is also a Member of the British Parliament, representing a "pocket borough." These "pocket" or "rotten" boroughs were House of Commons seats held by a patron who controlled the voting rights in that constituency. Pocket boroughs were abolished in England following the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867.

Jack Aubrey's distrust of unchecked popular democracy was typical of the age, particularly in light of the violence and bloodshed which marked the French Revolution. Yet Aubrey's fear of "tub-thumping politicians" remains a perennial concern. History is rife with examples of political leaders whipping up public sentiment in the interests of political objectives, both for good or ill. For every Winston Churchill calling on public resolve in the face of fearful odds, there are anti-democratic leaders using populist rhetoric to stoke fear and resentment, including turning public opinion against established institutions and norms of governing.

In recent times, we have witnessed a wave of antiestablishment and self-styled "populist" governments across the globe. From the United States to Great Britain, from Brazil to India, from Italy to Israel, political leaders have used populist appeals to win power and demonize opposition to their methods and agenda. In this article, I examine the clash between parliamentary responsible government and populism, and whether Canada's parliamentary system is likewise vulnerable to populism or perhaps is particularly suited to avoiding populism's anti-democratic excesses.

Foundations of the parliamentary system

The Westminster model is the foundation of the Canadian system of representative and responsible government. Parliament's principle role is to serve as a check on executive authority, a role that goes to the heart of the issue of how power is legitimately exercised and held accountable in a democratic society. As C.E.S. Franks notes in The Parliament of Canada, "[the] main functions of the House of Commons are to create a responsible government and to hold that government accountable." (2) Ours is a system of "responsible" government in the sense that the legislature is the means by which the government is kept in check, and the process by which governments change.

It is also "responsible" in the sense that members of the Cabinet exercise power and are responsible for the use of that power. The parliamentary-cabinet system combines authority with responsibility, and it is incumbent on the governing administration to answer for its decisions before Parliament and, ultimately, before the voting public. The safeguarding against the abuse of Ministerial authority lies in the relationship between Parliament and the government of the day. Parliament serves as the assembly before which the government of the day must defend its decisions.

Rules and conventions are the guiding force of the parliamentary system. The successful operation of that system is based in large measure on the procedures and precedents which guide its work. It is also shaped by human behaviour, the willingness of parliamentarians to respect and abide by those rules and procedures governing their conduct. This in turn endows those institutions with legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The effectiveness of these representative institutions instills public confidence in the governance of the country. The lack of such confidence may cause dissatisfaction and disengagement. It may also encourage attempts to adopt extra-parliamentary measures, or a leader willing to undercut accepted procedures in the name of the "public will."

Although Parliament encompasses the Crown, the House of Commons and the Senate, parliamentary democracy is centred in the elected House of Commons. The House of Commons binds the people to those who exercise power and, in doing so, "[the] House gives institutional expression to the concept of a national community." (3) In the parliamentary system, for example, control of the executive lies with the House of Commons. In order to govern, the party in office must enjoy the confidence of the House. Should the government lose that confidence, it must resign. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, together with members of the Cabinet, sit within rather than apart from the House of Commons, and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Their right to govern cannot be divorced from Parliament.

In turn, the House of Commons depends on that need for confidence in order to exact accountability on the part of the government. But the House of Commons does not participate in the government. Parliamentary control does not mean a veto over government actions, but rather accountability of the executive to the legislature. This was the essential outcome of England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. It established, once and for all, that the Crown was subject to the control of Parliament. Unlike the case in France or the United States, the establishment of the Dominion of Canada in 1867 was not the product of a popular uprising and so did not create a "people." As a result, the parliamentary system adopted in Canada on the basis of the Westminster model is not "government by the people." (4)

Unfortunately, "[although] our constitution is similar in principle to that of Great Britain, many Canadians tend to think of the House of Commons in congressional terms. They mislead themselves." (5) This misreading may be due in part to insufficient civic education in Canada as to the basic principles of the parliamentary system, which leads to the erroneous but persistent notion that the House of Commons is elected to govern. This mythology persists, even perhaps in the minds of some MPs.

In keeping with the constitutional objectives of "peace, order and good government," the Official Opposition to the government in the House of Commons is deliberately identified as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. This title underscores the parliamentary and public legitimacy of the Opposition to the government of the day. It also denotes opposition to the government, but not to the state itself and not with the intention of overthrowing the state through non-democratic means.

John B. Stewart identifies four functions performed by the House of Commons. First, the House can prevent the clandestine exercise of power by the government. Second, the House can serve as a proving ground for the administrative policies and legislative proposals of the government. Third, the House can constrain the government between elections--a role that can be played by both the opposition and within the ranks of the government caucus. Fourth, the House can serve to inform and educate the electorate by testing ideas and proposals in public. (6)

Cabinet Ministers in the parliamentary system are not Ministers of the House of Commons. They are Ministers of the Crown. That distinction is a very real constitutional principle with genuine implications. Indeed, "[it] is one of the main factors which determine how Canada is governed. The power of the House [of Commons] springs ultimately, not from what it can do independently, but from what it can prevent." (7)

These powers include the expenditure of public funds which requires the consent of the House of Commons, the imposition of taxes, and the passage of legislation. Under responsible government there can be no government unless the House of Commons supports and cooperates with one. Therefore, the House has a serious constitutional function--not to govern--but to support a government or conversely to deny that support. Since, conventionally, Ministers of the Crown physically sit in the House of Commons, they cannot avoid the scrutiny of the House and require its ongoing cooperation in order to conduct the business of the House. That cooperation becomes ever more critical in the case of a minority Parliament. The government must put its administrative and legislative activities before the House of Commons in the form of supply votes, substantive motions and bills.

The House of Commons serves as an electoral chamber, giving a government authority, to sustain it and thus to make stable government possible and, finally, to withdraw its confidence from a government which no longer deserves to exercise power. (8) Parliamentary debate takes place within the parameters of a detailed set of rules intended to provide effective democratic control over the governing administration...