The "democratic deficit" is of growing concern in all parts of the country and at all levels of government. Only in Ontario, however, are politicians responding to the deficit with a plan for less democracy, not more.
Buried deep inside the Ontario government's budget bill, currently before the provincial legislature, is a proposal to make municipal elections less frequent by extending the terms of local councils and school boards to four years from the current three.
The McGuinty government's stealth means most Ontarians are unaware what is happening. The change was introduced without public consultation and without debate. Citizens have no idea what the government is thinking, because the rationale for fewer municipal elections has never been explained in the legislature.
Perhaps the provincial government is silent because there is no cogent or compelling reason to hold fewer local elections. In a democracy, political accountability flows from the ballot box. Diminishing the frequency of elections means less accountability.
Local democracy is already threatened by complacency. Only 40 per cent of eligible voters participated in Ontario's last municipal elections. Perhaps one reason was the lack of choice. There were 574 acclamations across the province. In 28 municipalities, the entire council was acclaimed.
In this environment, surely the solution is to make it easier for citizens to participate in the political process and encourage their involvement. Making local elections fewer and further between is a step in the wrong direction.
Earlier this year, the official lobby for municipal councils surveyed its members, and found 61-per-cent support for four-year terms. The fact that municipal politicians want fewer elections -- that is, fewer opportunities to be accountable to the voters -- is disappointing, but not surprising. Self-interest should not be the basis of policy development, particularly when it appears to be the sole basis for the government's action.
Some may justify a four-year term for municipal councils and school boards based on the typical four-year term of the provincial legislature and Parliament. The comparison is flawed and disingenuous. To start, provincial and federal governments are more distant from, and less responsive to, the voters than municipal governments -- hardly a good example for local councils to emulate.
Further, a federal or provincial government always risks an early election if it strays too far from its mandate and is defeated in the house. Historically, this has happened to both minority governments (federal, 2005) and majority governments (Manitoba, 1988). This important "safety valve" is absent from the plan to give municipal councils four-year terms.
Moreover, municipal voters already must overcome significant obstacles to holding their councillors accountable. The presence of party politics at the provincial and federal level, while decidedly imperfect, gives voters a clear means of voting to re-elect or change their government. In contrast, the individual nature of municipal politics makes it difficult for voters to affect the shape of their local government; it is challenging to assess who was responsible for what policy and to grant or withhold support accordingly. Also, federal and provincial accountability is enhanced by the presence of official oppositions whose job is to question, probe and criticize; municipal voters lack the benefit of clear distinction between who is in power (and therefore to credit or blame) and who is not.
This is not to argue for the adoption of party politics at the municipal level. We simply note that the typical four-year provincial or federal term is offset by accountability forces that are absent from municipal politics.
As recently as 1980-82, the term of municipal councils in Ontario was two years. Subsequently, the term was changed to three years, the argument being that it gave municipal councillors a longer planning and decision-making horizon. Unfortunately, as the term increased, accountability has diminished.
One would think such a fundamental trimming of our democratic fabric would be the subject of public hearings and full debate. Instead, on Monday the Liberals used their legislative majority to cut off debate on the bill, forcing it into committee for a single day's consideration. A government truly proud of its plan to make local elections less frequent would never proceed so furtively.
Fewer, less frequent local elections will serve only the interests of politicians seeking to delay their accountability to voters. Our democracy will be the weaker for it.
Guy Giorno, a partner at Fasken Martineau LLP, was chief of staff to Ontario premier Mike Harris. Josh Matlow, a Toronto District School Board trustee, was a candidate for the Ontario Liberals. Dave Meslin, a municipal activist, was a staff member of the Ontario NDP.
