Thursday, December 07, 2006

Gay Marriage Vote: did Mps vote on behalf of constituents, themselves or their church?


The gay marriage free vote today raises questions about the decision making processes utilised by our of our elected members of parliament. What is one’s responsibility to their constituents in Canadian federal politics versus their own values. While I know what Plato’s answer would be, our members interpret their responsibilities in different ways. This was demonstrated by the voting patterns today.

One interpretation of representative democracy would suggest that elected officials have been voted in by their constituents because they have superior decision making skills. Once elected, they have free reign in theory to make decisions that will best serve their constituents. Elected officials who are proponents of this interpretation will only be held accountable for these decisions at election time - and that is about it as far as accountability. In the meantime, constituents need to respect that there is a method to the decision making process and that they will be better off at the end of the day. This is a top-down approach.

This is one interpretation of the responsibilities of elected officials in a representative democracy.

Yet another interpretation of representative democracy is that elected officials are surrogates of their constituents. They have a responsibility to consult with constituents on key decisions, and vote on their behalf, in spite of personal beliefs or preferences.

Somewhere in between these two interpretations lies the optimal representative role.

Then, what does it mean when one’s MP votes with their church (a campaign contributor) before the collective preferences of those who live in the riding?

I don’t know. This seems to have happened today for the second time on this issue. More than a few resididents and Liberals have taken note. Perhaps coincidentally or not, this same member voted against the preferences (and arguably) best interest of a majority of riding constituents on the Nation motion last week.

On the western side of the island of Montreal, the approach subscribed to most by those who serve is obviously the former.

No comments: