Canadians fit in a rare category in the Americas: this nation does not have a president. Sure, you can blame it on the Queen for not tolerating any other woman take up Canada’s paramount position. But she actually does not have any more political say than you or I have over this northern nation. The Queen, though highest in top, takes in a legal and regal position in this second largest nation in the world without having any political power. And now, the ugly-ducks up North may be on the brink of becoming ever more beautiful Canadian Geese.
Up till now, Canadians voted for their representatives in districts only, common in most once-British nations oversees. The Canadian voting system plays out much like musical chairs in that only the last person standing wins the seat; other participants — some with spectacular and wonderful personalities — all end up being left at the waste side as soon as the music stops playing. But now, the electoral procedure in place in all ten provinces may be about to change in British Columbia.
To achieve fair representation, grassroots organisation FairVote Canada is very active bringing Canadians together behind a common democratic cause. Despite many set backs for FairVote, the province of British Columbia may be getting closest to achieving the form of representation that is mainly found in Europe: proportional representation without a separately elected leader in top. If these British Columbians succeed on 12th May, King Arthur’s round table may finally reach the Americas.
FairVote has tried before, not just in British Columbia but in the other Canadian provinces as well. Yet while the first attempt for reform in BC four years ago turned into a small-margin defeat — with 58% of the voters in favour when 60% was required — this time the victory seems certain. The likely development of selecting a provincial government proportionally without any other restrictions is revolutionary in the Western hemisphere.
But does it really matter how that we vote? When another formerly British colony — New Zealand — changed its district system in 1996 to also incorporate the proportional aspect, the population definitively felt more empowered with having a bigger choice and getting more attention by all these parties. Yet the big surprise of what changed within a single election was that the number of female representatives jumped from 21% to 30% of those elected — a clear sign that the population’s votes now translate much better into their representatives. Argentina’s proportional form of elections is one of the reasons there are more female representatives here. Argentina ranks seventh in the world in this respect.
But not having a president, such as the case in Canada, also helps diminish an outcome that is otherwise all too common in the Americas. An elite can more easily end up with more than their fair share of the wealth when a single most-powerful person resides in top. Some may think that Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez is the logical choice to help minimise income disparity, but the selection itself of a top dog may be much closer to the heart of the matter.
‘The Open Veins of Latin America’ by Eduardo Galeano — the gift Chávez gave US president Obama at the Summit of the Americas — may speak volumes about the income disparity that is more entrenched in the Americas than on any other continent of the world. Yet this book does not mention the link between separately voting for a single most-powerful leader and having the body of representatives bowing more to the wishes of the elite.
There is plenty of evidence that selecting a separate president on top of a representative body swings the outcome to a nation’s elite. Brazil’s top 10% of the population owns very close to half of that nation’s wealth. While Argentina does better (the top 10% own about a third of the wealth), the more common outcome for the elite in Europe is to possess between just as little as a fifth of a nation and the still moderate quarter of all wealth. Nowadays, Canada fits right in with the European nations — with 23.8% of their nation’s wealth going to their elite. Today, it is the American nation best delivering equity to its people. In the future, with them electing their representatives more proportionally, Canadians stand a good chance to improve their already excellent outcome.
Let’s look at the next American nation doing well in this respect: Jamaica. This Caribbean nation does a tiny bit better job on equity than the US with it hovering around 30% going to their top 10% elite. All other American nations all do worse (or better — if you’re part of the top 10%). The surprising element for Jamaica is that it, too, has that same Queen taking up the top position.
Canada and Jamaica may have to thank their excellent outcome on equity to her Majesty the Queen of England for her demanding that paramount position above anyone else, and then not having any actual political say to pronounce. The elites of Canada and Jamaica may be wishing for a president…
Frederick Schermer is an analyst with LocalParty.Org.