Bob Rae develops a taste for democracy

It seems as though Stephane Dion's cave-cam performance last week will hasten his departure from Stornoway by several months. Word is that the Liberal Party met Sunday night to discuss ways of heaving him overboard in advance of the scheduled party leadership convention, now set for May 2009 in Vancouver.

One idea is a speedy vote, wherein party members could participate from afar, such as through the Internet. Fair enough -- though it does change the rules of the leadership race, half-way through. The other way being bruited is for a simple vote of the 77 Liberal MPs -- a group in which Michael Ignatieff is said to have a significant lead over rival Bob Rae.

Advocates of this latter approach have a sense of consistency to them. These were the same MPs who felt that they, as MPs, were a better judge of who ought to be Canada's prime minister than the general electorate who voted just seven weeks ago. After all, if Stephen Harper didn't have the confidence of Parliament, how could he be prime minister? The same could apply to the selection of leader of the opposition, of course. Who should make that decision -- ordinary, run-of-the-mill Liberals, or the enlightened Parliamentary elite? If they could get together to choose Canada's prime minister, surely they can get together to choose their own party leader. The logic is impeccable.

All of this seems to have perturbed Bob Rae, who lashes out against it on his blog tonight. He calls it undemocratic -- true, that! And while he's at it, he points out that such a process would ignore the West, where the Liberals have nearly no MPs; it would ignore young people, women, and other groups not represented in caucus. True, again! Why, I'm taking a liking to this Rae fellow!

Here's his complaint:

Don’t Let Your Right to Vote be taken Away

All weekend, I’d been hearing rumors about this, but today I was really surprised to read press reports about various MPs moving for an immediate vote to elect our Leader next Wednesday, in the Commons caucus.   

I thought I’d seen a lot of politics over 30 years of public service, but this one really came from left field.

The idea of taking away the vote from tens of thousands of grassroots activists in every part of Canada, and reducing the franchise to just 76 men and women seems so out-of-step with the modern world.  It makes you shake your head.  Here’s just a quick, off-the-cuff list of things that struck me as wrong about this idea:

• The activist base of the party would be unable to vote.  As an MP, I’m enormously and profoundly grateful to the volunteers who sustain my political career in my riding.  I cannot imagine rewarding their tireless work by removing their say in the leadership.
• Significant portions of the country that didn’t elect a Liberal MP would be unable to participate.  What about the voice of rural Liberals, of almost all of Western Canada, of Quebeckers outside Montreal?  All of these folks would be silenced.
• What about the Senate? These great Liberals, distinguished Canadians from inside and outside of politics, would have their votes taken away after lifetimes of service.
• What about the Party Constitution?  The party is preparing a perfectly viable, constitutionally valid plan for holding a one-member-one-vote ballot electronically in mid-January.  That’s just a few weeks away, and gives us time to prepare for the Conservative budget.  It’s timely, legal, workable, low-cost, and constitutional. 

It’s up to us to put a stop to this hasty, ill-considered idea for electing our leader.  I am raising my voice publicly for your right to vote.  Please help me by raising yours as well.