Perceptions and performance: how do MPs shape up?

• Author: Gidengil, Elisabeth
• Position: Members of parliament

Drawing from several chapters contained in Canadian Democracy from the Ground Up: Perceptions and Performance, in this article Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo examine citizens' evaluations of their elected representatives and assess several key aspects of MPs' performance in light of these evaluations. Noting some possible reasons for a disjuncture between citizens' perceptions of MPs and how MPs perform their representational roles, the authors suggest some possible avenues for improving MPs' public image.

**********

Satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada lags behind a number of other established democracies. In fact, only a bare majority of Canadians (55 per cent) are satisfied with the country's democratic performance, placing Canada in 11th place among 20 countries in which the same question was posed. (1) Moreover, dissatisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada has grown in recent years. Canadians appear to be particularly displeased with the performance of their MPs. (2) But is their dissatisfaction warranted?

Borrowing from several chapters contained in Canadian Democracy from the Ground Up: Perceptions and Performance, we examine citizens' evaluations of their elected representatives and assess several key aspects of MPs' performance in light of these evaluations. We also explore some possible reasons for a disjuncture between citizens' perceptions of MPs and how MPs perform their representational roles. We end by suggesting some possible avenues for improving MPs' public image.

Public Perceptions

Figure 1 presents Canadians' evaluations of MPs on a variety of dimensions. (3) We can see that MPs receive particularly poor ratings (4.2) when it comes to putting constituents' interests ahead of their own. They fare only a little better for dealing with the problems of individual constituents (4.4), representing the views of their constituents (4.5) and staying in touch with constituents and local groups (4.8). These are harsh judgments. Many Canadians seem to view MPs as self-serving and as failing in their role as representatives of their constituencies. Equally concerning is the failing grade for holding the government to account (4.4). Evaluations are somewhat more positive when it comes to MPs' performance with respect to debating and voting on issues in the House of Commons (5.3) and representing their party's views (6.1), but as Rudermen points out, these tasks are relatively removed from the day-to-day lives of constituents. (4)

Another widespread perception is that those elected to Parliament fail to keep most of their promises. This was evident when the survey respondents were asked to rate Canada's performance on various attributes. Promise-keeping received one of the lowest scores (5.0) on a zero to 10 scale; only the items asking about the honesty of government officials (4.8) and corruption in politics (4.5) received lower scores. (5) Parliament itself received a bare pass (5.6) when it came to being representative of Canadian society. Moreover, a majority of respondents (56 per cent) were dissatisfied with the way MPs in Canada are doing their job.

Comparing Perceptions and Performance

How justified are these negative perceptions? The lacklustre grades for whether parliament is representative are warranted--at least from the perspective of descriptive representation. Descriptive representation is achieved when elected representatives resemble those whom they represent. (6) The Canadian parliament falls far short of mirroring the electorate. The proportion of women, Aboriginals, immigrants, visible minorities, and young people in Parliament has historically lagged far behind their presence in the population. However, the 41st Parliament did come closer to reflecting the diversity of Canadian society. Moreover, the numerical underrepresentation of women, Aboriginals, visible minorities and immigrants was to some extent offset by prime ministerial appointments. Nonetheless, these groups remained underrepresented in most parliamentary positions.

Descriptively accurate representation, of course, is no guarantee that Parliament will be responsive. Conversely, Parliament may be responsive even if it fails to mirror the electorate. From the perspective of substantive representation, elected representatives are responsive to the extent that they act for, and in the interest of, those who elected them. (7) Substantive representation is much harder to quantify than descriptive representation but we can gain some insights from a comparison of Canadians' policy priorities, as expressed in opinion polls, and those of parliament as expressed in debates.

To do so, Blidook combined survey data with a content analysis of Question Period, Standing Order 31 Member Statements, and legislative debates in order to evaluate the extent to...