Less taxation, more representation

Winston Churchill’s comment that democracy is not the best form of government but better than all the rest, still stands today as unchallengeable. Indeed reference to any organization, institution or country as being democratic is considered as being complimentary.

Democracy can take two forms, direct and representative, although the former where everybody votes on everything is largely unworkable when numbers increase to more than a handful. The system that is best known and most practiced is representative democracy; it does, however, have its own shortcomings.

The right to vote is at the very core of the democratic system, and that alone constitutes a major battleground. Women were deprived of this right until the last century, and in the United States, that supposed bastion of freedom, black citizens were systematically prevented from casting their ballots.

Consequently if everybody has the right to vote, then everything should be fine. Well, not quite. In Quebec, though unquestionably deemed a democratic province in a democratic country, it may be worthwhile to scrutinize the system a little more closely; particularly in the manner MNAs are elected.

Each MNA represents a clearly defined geographic area. The territory and the population have enormous variations. Generally speaking, urban areas, particularly in and around Montreal have proportionally less representation than the non-urban areas. For example the four smallest ridings, which are rural, have less of a combined population than any one of the four largest ridings.

Additionally the non-francophone population live in these urban regions. It takes no complex calculation to conclude that anglophones are underrepresented in Quebec’s National Assembly. So it may be true that we each have one vote, it is noteworthy that vote is worth less according to your place of residence.

This is no trivial matter. Take for example the recent matter of the merger, de-merger of municipalities. The constitutional power to enact that legislation lies solely in the hands of the provincial government.

However, if the representatives of the affected areas have so little clout how can citizens demonstrate their frustration? That very frustration has its roots in a sense of being considered irrelevant, which in turn becomes the birth mother of the political backlash.

Mario Dumont’s courting of the suburban mayors is no coincidence, but I suspect that there are many who regard his venture into the area as being opportunistic rather than principled. Nonetheless, it is a healthy sign, it is healthy because voters who want to be taken seriously should not allow themselves to be taken for granted. If the present incumbents believe in democracy, they should be prepared to demand that their party change the law, and if it does not, they should leave the party to sit as an independents. They are surely aware that leaving the party is not a novel idea. After all, Jean Charest was once a federal Conservative, and Dumont a Liberal youth leader, and as for Lucien Bouchard, he seems to have been in every party except the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. If an independent should decide to run, they cab use a slogan borrowed somewhat from the America revolution. Instead of no taxation without representation, let us just proclaim ‘Less taxation and more representation.’

How bad is the situation in this province? We will take a look at some statistics in my next column.