A tale of two governments

A tale of two governments

Well, the mudslinging and name-calling are almost over. Soon, Parliament will welcome its newest set of occupants. By the time this paper hits the streets, we’ll be on our way to the polling stations to cast our votes and decide which political party can best represent the Canadian democratic society – for after the big cloud of dust enveloping all the smear campaigns and personally attacks blows over, we are still faced with one important decision, that of choosing the right program for government and the right leaders to bring those programs to fruition.

Having worked for Philippine Senator Ramon Magsaysay Jr. for the most part of my writing career and coming to Canada five years ago with a fairly decent political insight, I cannot help comparing the political atmosphere between Canada and the Philippines. The first, and obvious difference, is that Canada is under a Parliamentary system of government while the Philippines has a Presidential government system. Though that may soon change if proponents of Cha-Cha (Charter change) in the Philippines have their way – but that’s another story.

In the Philippines, the President down to the barangay officials are duly elected and serve a specific term of office, as specified under the Philippine Constitution. During national elections, a typical ballot would contain close to 30 names on it.

You don’t have to worry about remembering too many names during federal elections in Canada, however. You need only to put the name of a candidate in your riding, and basically let party members worry about who’s going to be Prime Minister.

As a result, voters in the Philippines have historically been inclined to choose a candidate based on his or her popularity, charisma and personality, and it’s rarely about a political party’s program of government that ensures an election win. Canadian voters generally make the decision based on party platforms, and not on personality.

This is probably why in Canada, changing political parties mid-stream is an act that is frowned upon, at the very least, and can even cause a politician to be denounced by his or her riding. As what happened to high profile business and political figure Belinda Stronach, an MP in my riding of Aurora-Newmarket. Stronach was catapulted to Parliament’s House of Commons in 2004 under the banner of the Conservative Party. Last year, the businesswoman-turned-politician crossed over to Paul Martin’s Liberal Party and was later named minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Stronach’s Liberal transfer may have succeeded in quashing initial attempts by the opposition to topple Martin’s administration, but it may have also ruined her political career, as some political analysts would argue. Some residents from her riding expressed disappointment and anger over Stronach’s party switching, calling it the “robbing of democracy” in Newmarket-Aurora.

Now that another federal elections is underway, I am particularly interested to see the turnout in the Newmarket-Aurora riding, as Stronach contends with former political ally Lois Brown. Call it a test of my theory about the difference between Canadian and Filipino voters, and see if Stronach’s high profile, headline-grabbing personality would be enough to ensure that she remains in the next Parliament.

Which brings me to my original point on voter preference. Is it popularity or political affinity that ultimately catapults a candidate to office? History would tell us that in the Philippines, popularity seems to have overtaken substance, as evidenced by the cast of characters that made up the Philippine Senate over the past decade – a former basketball player, former action stars, former first lady of a toppled president (himself a former action hero). This is not necessarily a bad thing, though, but such practice of electing the most popular personalities could discourage other worthy but less known candidates from running for office.

There’s also a hitch to electing a candidate based on his political affiliation. This leads to constituents knowing more about the political party and less about the particular candidate in their riding. Here you run the risk of electing a crook, who might just happen to be the candidate of the political party you are supporting. Again, the voters leave the decision-making to the political parties and trust that the official candidate for their riding has all the necessary credentials for Parliament. Or, at least, they should, shouldn’t they?

As we go into this democratic exercise of choosing our leaders, it is undoubtedly important to do your homework, find out each political party’s program of government and decide which one best represents your ideals and beliefs.

But I believe equally important is taking that extra mile to get to know the candidates in your riding. Do they themselves believe in the programs they are espousing? What is their service track record? Is this the best person to represent you and your family on matters that concern the area where you live?
Because they are, ultimately, your first voice in Parliament. So, vote wisely!