Amanda Simard, MPP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, has recently chosen to leave the Progressive Conservatives and cross the party line to the Liberal Party.
This is not the first recent party line crossing in Ontario. Simard has joined the ranks of such others as Maxime Bernier (Conservative to People’s Party) and Leona Alleslev (Liberal to Conservative).
Crossing the party line during an elected term is a controversial move, and also quite undemocratic. In a democracy such as Canada, representatives such as MPPs are elected by the people to carry out the will of their constituents and represent the party behind which they stand.
By changing party lines, Simard has disrespected the electoral demands of her constituents. Whether you support her policies or not, which you very well may due to their popularity, the problem is clear: the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell have elected a Conservative MPP in a fair and valid election, but their wishes were not carried out in a democratic fashion.
Some may argue that the job of an MPP is to do what is best for their constituents, and not necessarily exactly what the constituents demand. However, this is a view that is dangerously close to tyranny. A representative of the people, in order to remain accountable to their constituents, must follow their wishes and keep the promises they made.
Simard’s decision came from dissatisfaction with Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s treatment of French-language programs in Ontario. This party decision led Simard to sit as an Independent for two years, before finally joining the Liberal Party.
While her defense of the Francophone community is fairly popular, the big-picture, undemocratic repercussions of Simard’s decision must be considered.
So, what is the solution to this problem? Of course people should be allowed to leave or switch parties, even if they are a current representative. So, how can this be done while remaining democratic? Two options exist.
First, there is no problem with parties being switched while an MPP is not in office. MPP Leona Alleslev switched parties prior to an election, which allowed her constituents to make an informed decision thanks to knowing where she stood.
This solution is democatic and fair to all involved, but requires the representative to sit tight until the next election, which may be problematic in some time-sensitive situations.
Second, if a representative switches parties during their term, we could consider it an instant resignation which would lead to a snap election. In Simard’s case, leaving the Conservatives should have led to her constituency having another election, in which she may or may not win under her new banner.
For something relatively uncommon such as a party switch, this is a reasonable solution to ensure that the constituents of any given district have a fair shot at electing into power the party that they wish.
Wherever you may sit on the political spectrum, consider the deeper impact of party switching in a democratic system, as well as the precedent that it puts into place. How would we feel if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joined the People’s Party tomorrow?
If there’s one thing to remember, it’s the definition of a representative: one that represents a constituency in a legislative body.
The key word here being “represents.” We have another word for a politician that pays no attention to the electoral wishes of their constituents, instead choosing to arbitrarly ignore the wishes of the people. That word is “tyrant.”
No matter how popular her decision may be, it should only be put forward in a democratic election.
File photo.
