Sunday, October 10, 2010

City Hall fails to Embrace Party Politics

Why hasn't Traditional Party Affiliations been embraced by City Hall?
 BY: Sean Sillers
     Even a casual observer of Toronto politics likely knows where most councillors lie on the political spectrum. Forming cohesive alliances with like-minded peers is a time-honoured tradition in politics. How does the lack of official political parties affect the people’s interest at city hall?
      One thing many supporters of party politics in Toronto cite is accountability. Toronto Ward 36 councillor Brian Ashton, for instance, who at 58 is retiring from the more progressive wing at city hall, sees party affiliation as a means to hold individual councillors to their party’s platform.
      “There would be a measure of accountability as council members would be subject to party discipline,” he said.
      Ashton noted, however, the possible consequences.
      “We’ve moved away from a consensus based process and structure to something else more adversarial,” he said. “We now seem to have a quasi government versus a quasi opposition which is a less creative environment where independence is thwarted.”
      Unlike at the provincial and federal levels, most municipalities in Canada have not adopted party politics. In Toronto, council consists of 44 seats plus the mayor’s office, which chooses committee members and sets the agenda for meetings. While many individual coucillors, especially on the political fringes, are not shy about their political leanings, official parties do not exist at city hall.
      Currently, council meetings at city hall are subject to a mayoral agenda. Toronto Ward 16 councillor Karen Stintz believes a party system addresses a broader field of issues.
      “Council only debates what’s on the agenda, which is set by the mayor. With parties, issues not on the agenda could be addressed,” she said.
      Stintz, a long time member of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party and the federal Conservative party, likens this to private members’ bills, where individual representatives introduce legislation, such as at the provincial and federal levels. Given these bills rarely reach the chamber floor, one wonders just how many individual members’ issues would make it on to the agenda from a member of a minority party at city hall.
       Party affiliation could cost councillors a significant measure of independence when voting on legislation. However, does this also lessen the backroom deals that oil the political machine? Individual councillors often agree to support each other on pet projects in their ward in exchange for the promise their support will be reciprocated. The elimination of such agreements might bring more transparency to the process.
       Yet, University of Toronto economist Ian Parker believes this is a necessary trade off as “backroom deals between councillors get things done.”
       Introducing party politics could serve to increase the power of the mayor’s office if its party held a majority of votes on council. Such ‘majority’ status could provide the mayor with carte blanche over council, all but drowning out dissent. 
      Alternately, a minority situation, where the mayor’s party did not have the benefit of a majority of votes on council, would “provide a built-in checks and balances” mechanism, according to Stintz. Nevertheless, such a minority construct could paralyze city governance along partisan lines.
      Party politics also carries with it the element of patronage. When fully established, a party system at the city level may have its own backroom dealings.  Yet instead of making deals to get things done, these deals would involve the dissemination of power and influence along party lines.
      As Parker explains, “parties would have agendas rather than issues.” Councillors could become beholden to their party’s programme, rather than their constituents interests.
      The effect of a party system could fundamentally change how the city interacts with the people. While a party system holds individual councillors more accountable at election time, it might also diminish the public’s access to city hall.
      “Access would become much more limited for special interest groups, neighbourhoods and individuals,” Ashton said. Ironically, “if an individual wanted to have an impact, he’d probably have to join a party."

No comments:

Post a Comment