Just this week, NDP Member of Parliament (MP) Claude Patry decided to "cross the floor" to join the Bloc Qubcois. Whatever Patry's reasons, which were connected to the NDP's position on sovereignty, Patry's actions are interesting to political observers and professors of politics. "Crossing the floor" means that an elected representative has decided to leave their own political party to join another party and this is usually done when a politician feels that their party has betrayed a core belief. It is often described as a "defection" and is sometimes portrayed as an act that undermines the democratic process. Yet it is possible to think about "crossing the floor" as an act of conscience that challenges the assumption that the MP is simply a cog in the wheel of responsible government.
There are two distinct ways that an elected official may represent a constituency. First is the "delegate" model which is best displayed in the political system in the United States. You might think of it this way... Imagine that you have elected me as your representative to Congress. I might say to you, "Thank you for electing me. What are your central concerns and how can I best ensure that I speak for you, my constituents, when I represent you in the House of Representatives?" Note here that the House is actually called "representative" and the members embrace their constituency needs as their foremost concern. They are not required to vote in the House along party lines.
In the second model, called the trustee model, I might say this... "Thank you for electing me. My party has a series of policy positions on many different issues. I will go to Ottawa and sit in the House of Commons where I will vote with my party on those policy positions. Some policy positions may not be in the interest of my constituency but these policies are the will of the larger party organization. I will do my best to express the individual concerns of the constituency in caucus but I will vote with my party." In the Canadian model, of trustee representation, party discipline is at the core of the process. If we assume that when Canadians vote they understand that they are electing a trustee and not a delegate, then perhaps, "crossing the floor" is a defection and does undermine our democratic model.
However, in my mind, this model should not be at the core of our concern when we elect an individual. Some months ago, I wrote about the "problem of dirty hands" which is a way to think about the moral component of a politician's responsibility. The system may say that one must vote with the party but one's conscience must also be clear. One cannot do something against one's own ethical or moral sensibilities.
The other critical issue to consider is that the trustee model is embedded in Westminster model of government. This ensures that the government gets the votes they need to maintain "confidence" in the House. So there is considerable executive power that exists in the Prime Minister and Cabinet because they articulate the party policy and they expect that their members will vote with them. This leaves backbenchers at the mercy of the party leadership. Even Opposition parties have this kind of centralized power core that gives little room for public dissent among representatives.
It might be true that someone who runs for a political party should know where the party stands on issues but because parties have to articulate a range of policy options it is not always clear how those ideas will manifest after an election. Some issues may require give and take but should we have more respect for a politician who says, "I cannot vote for this and sleep well tonight" than for someone who continues to toe the party line despite grave misgivings?
There is, of course, a way to test the notion that "crossing the floor" was the correct choice for a politician and that is to have a byelection to "ask" constituents if they agree with the politician's actions. This may also be a part of the larger ethical choice that is made when one is certain of one's moral position.
