Canadian Political Parties

The golden age of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom, pre modern party system, is where large bombastic speeches could change the entirety of the direction of a nation. The composition of Parliament, specifically the House of Commons, in Canada has never been through the golden age of parliamentary government, where no member had a distinct party affiliation. Basic analysis of the underlying political framework leads to indisputable electoral bias towards political parties. This evident bias has led the electorate to, perhaps unintentionally, empower the extra-parliamentary wings of political organizations, where party affiliation is imperative. This empowerment in turn has created the convention that elected representatives are an amalgamation of delegates of their party and the constituency they represent, the latter taking precedent in crucial moments within Parliament. The open nomination process has been the extra-parliamentary wings, particularly the national executives, strategy to regulate the procedures by which a candidate comes to secure the seemingly advantageous position of the trustee of the party in the constituency until the election. This meritocratic system of open nominations rapidly degenerates within crucial electoral districts where a bureaucratic selection process overtakes it which evidently supports star candidates much like in a technocratic system. Eventually these trustees of the party, however chosen, will face the electorate and those who were chosen in the meritocratic system of open nominations will have the constituency support consequently aiding in a more grassroots campaign movement, which could lead to greater electoral success. However many meritocratic selected candidates will be at a severe disadvantage in parliament, while excellent politicians they often lack the necessary capability to form a truly efficient and effective cabinet. A technocratic nomination system, chosen by the bureaucracy of the extra-parliamentary wing, promotes an optimal candidate that, if elected, will be able to effectively and efficiently manage a federal ministry. In the current Canadian political landscape, political parties …show more content…
Transitioning into the 2015 election the open nomination process arose as a strategy to implement their commitments within the extra-parliamentary wings bureaucracy. This implementation is suppose to translate to an increase in grassroots movements within the local organizations of political parties and increased multi-level accountability. However the current bureaucracies commitment to accountability and grassroots organizing, especially within the Liberal Party of Canada, has become a detriment to the process. This model of organizing disenfranchises many knowledgeable individuals from attempting to run for public office, due to the mentality of popularity above all and the competitive nature rooted in this from of organizing. This methodology of grassroots movements as an absolute priority has transitioned the focus of the constituencies away from policy development, and towards interest aggregation and recruitment. This is due to the lack of knowledgeable candidates and individuals at the constituent levels within the extra-parliamentary wing. Open nominations has caused the systemic discrimination of technocrats and resulted in their alienation from the political processes. However a technocratic nomination system would appoint knowledgeable individuals that would be able to meaningfully act as trustees of the electorate within the constituencies and delegates of their political party. Technocratic nominated candidates would be able to properly facilitate constituency based policy development, due to the fact that they are conventionally a member of a technically skilled elite. Analyzing the nature which they would be nominated and how they would aide in policy development, a technocratic nomination system would lead to an increase in political party accountability to the