Breeding cynics: increasingly, voters feel the primary motivation of most politicians is gaining or keeping power, and many are so fed up with the process, and the excesses of government, that they don't even bother going to the polls on election day.

In 1974, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau won an election by promising not to introduce wage and price controls to check inflation. Once elected, he promptly introduced wage and price controls. A decade ago, then-candidate Jean Chretien promised to get rid of the hated Goods and Services Tax and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He did neither and fed the public's cynicism about the trustworthiness of politicians. Since then, hundreds of political promises have been made; many of them have been kept but many others have not.

Provincially, the New Democratic Party won re-election in British Columbia in 1996 after campaigning on how well it had managed the government budget. Within weeks the government revealed that the deficit for the previous year was $235 million. Ultimately, the number went up to $347.4 million. This was pocket change compared to the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario who boasted that they would produce a balanced budget right up to Election Day in October 2003: instead, they left the newly-elected Liberals with a $5.6 billion deficit.

There's no doubt that broken promises have tarnished the image of politicians, federally and provincially, and left voters wondering why they should bother with elections. And, there are other reasons too for distrust: according to a 2002 report by Canada's Information Commissioner John Reid, the federal government tries hard to hide government documents from public view. Mr. Reid recounted "horror stories" where top federal bureaucrats destroyed documents in order to prevent their release to the public, or tried to intimidate people who had legally requested information. He also said the federal government has been creating more agencies that are outside the scope of the Access to Information Act, such as a new organization overseeing the disposal of nuclear waste. As well, the Department of Finance reportedly destroyed copies of politically sensitive documents to prevent their legal disclosure to the Canadian public. The department later told people who had asked for the documents that, "after a thorough search, no records were found."

Another reason voters can't be bothered to turn out is the first-past-the-post election system, which some say has produced "elected dictatorships." While Canada is one of the most free and democratic countries in the world, no government--federally or provincially--allocates seats based on the proportion of the popular vote that each party obtains. This winner-take-all approach produces large discrepancies between a party's level of elector support and the number of seats it gets in the House of Commons. The result is that unless voters choose one of the two top parties in their riding, their vote won't count in forming the next government. Our system ensures that minority parties are never going to elect anybody so supporters feel it's a waste of time voting.

Proportional representation (PR)--used in all democracies except Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.--would go some way to solving this. Under the PR system, parties are elected, at least in part, based on the percentage of the vote each party gets at the polls, rather than simply on who won which riding.

The new government in Ontario has promised to look into this: newly-elected Premier Dalton McGuinty said during his election campaign that there will be a binding referendum on a reformed voting system during his first term in office.

In British Columbia, an effort is underway to reconnect with voters and improve turnout at elections. A 158-member panel of citizens has been randomly selected to recommend ways in which provincial elections can be improved. A referendum on whether to adopt the new system the assembly comes up will be held in May 2005, the pre-set date of the next provincial election in B.C. If voters approve of any recommended changes, the new system will be in place for the 2009 provincial election. Meanwhile, what is catching international attention is the very idea of a citizens' assembly that excludes elected politicians and special-interest groups.

In June 2003, Quebec's newly elected Premier Jean Charest promised "a global proposal on the reform of our democratic institutions within one year, which will include proposed reforms to the electoral system, so that the distribution of seats in this Assembly better reflects the votes expressed."

PEI Premier Pat Binns appointed former provincial Supreme Court Judge Norman Carruthers to conduct a study on reforming the island's voting system. His report is expected in the fall of 2004.

New Brunswick's Conservative Premier Bernard Lord also promised in June 2003 to appoint a commission on electoral reform, and the province's other parties are in favour of reform.

And, in Ottawa, the Law Commission of Canada is putting the finishing touches on its report on whether the federal government should reform its voting system. That report is due early in 2004, and all the major parties support reform.

With proportional representation, majority governments are less likely, and parties are forced to work together. Although some argue that this produces unstable governments that lack strong leadership, others think coalition is a good thing. A group of 30 academic experts, political journalists, and retired public servants, consulted by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in 2003, showed that five years of unstable, minority government in Ottawa were the most productive in the past half century. Prime Ministers during the period were assessed in the areas of national unity, the economy, social policy, and Canada's role in the world. Lester Pearson was top of the list of achievers: he headed two minority governments between 1963 and 1968 through regular crises, but he managed to put through a number of ambitious programs: Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the new Canadian flag, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that first alerted the country to the rising crisis in Quebec and then provided the blueprint for introducing bilingualism, and the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact. Mr. Pearson also kept Canada out of the Vietnam War and still maintained good relations with the United States.

But not everyone thinks proportional representation will have much effect on voter turnout. Given that countries with it only have slightly higher voter turnouts than those using Canadian-style, first-past-the-post systems.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Some people think voter apathy is partly a result of our hectic lifestyles: with two-income families, commuting gobbles up a lot of time and the demands of the workplace plus home and family leaves politics at the bottom of the heap. Discuss how you think voters could be persuaded to become more interested in politics.

2. Globe and Mail columnist William Johnson wrote in May 2002 that "MPs who arrive in Ottawa determined to act like responsible adults are soon like cocks in a cockfight who refuse to peck and slash. They'll be eaten alive by the media or their constituents. That's because our parliamentary system, working with our electoral system, fosters warfare between political parties." Watch Question Period and discuss the behaviour of our politicians and what changes you think might be made to improve the exchange.

3. Germany and New Zealand use versions of the mixed-member proportional electoral system, with half the seats in the legislature based on a first-past-the-post system, and the rest on the total number of votes each party receives. Australia uses the "alternative vote" system in which voters rank the candidates and if there's no candidate with 50 percent of the vote among first choices, the voters' second and third choices are used to calculate which candidate has the most overall support. Report on these systems and decide which you think would work best for Canada.

FACT FILE

A poll released in March 2000 by Harvard's Shorenstein Center revealed that 55 percent of adults thought the U.S. presidential campaign was "boring;" 71 percent agreed that "politics in America is generally pretty disgusting;" and 87 percent believe that "most politicians are willing to say whatever it takes to get themselves elected."

FACT FILE

When a 1998 survey asked Canadians: "Do you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with the statement that politicians are ready to lie to get elected?" about 88 percent of respondents agreed with the statement with more than half saying they "strongly agreed." The same survey found that 57 percent of Canadians think "quite a few people running the government are a little crooked."

FACT FILE

When a Quebec public affairs program Un jour a la fois (One Day At A Time) asked viewers to vote for the Quebec politician who was the biggest liar in 1997, Prime Minister Jean Chretien was the winner.

FACT FILE

The Institute for Research on Public Policy reported in 2001 that only two percent of Canadians aged 18 to 27 say they are or have been members of a political party, compared to 33 percent of people 57 and older.

DOWNWARD MOMENTUM

For decades, surveys in mature democratic countries have shown a steady downward in slope in public confidence in politicians. Most results--in the United States, Germany, Japan, Britain, Italy, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Austria, and Finland--show a pattern of disillusionment with politicians. According to an analysis carried out in 1999, the Netherlands was the only country where there was clear evidence of rising confidence (between 1971 and 1994), although the decline in Denmark was comparatively small. The surveys asked voters such questions as "Do you think that politicians are trustworthy? Do members of parliament care about voters like you? How much do you trust governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above their own political party?" Confidence in political institutions such as parliament, the armed services, the judiciary, the police, and the civil service also declined, except in Iceland and Denmark which scored small increases. Some political scientists think this set the stage for the growth of protest movements since the 1960s.

The proportion of Canadians who felt that "the government doesn't care what people like me think" went from 45 percent in 1968 to 67 percent in 1993. Those expressing "a great deal of confidence in political parties" fell from 30 percent in 1979 to 11 percent in 1999. Confidence in the House of Commons fell from 49 percent in 1974 to 21 percent in 1996. And, by 1992 only 34 percent of Canadians were satisfied with their system of government, down from 51 percent in 1986.

Analysts say all this might not be as bad as it seems: it could just be that people expect more from governments (in relatively new areas such as the environment, and minority rights, for example) and in democracies, they're free to express their disappointment. Or, perhaps the disillusionment reflects higher educational standards, or better media coverage. Despite the criticisms, the surveys also showed that more than three-quarters of respondents in rich countries think democracy is the best form of government. But, some think the most serious threat comes from the increasingly professional pressure groups that work behind the scenes to influence government policy and defend special interest groups, often at the expense of the electorate as a whole.

FACT FILE

The Economist reported in February 2000 that about 23 million Americans watched the Fox Television show Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire? On the same night, about three million people watched the Republican presidential debate.

STAYING HOME IN DROVES

There's a tide of no-shows at polling stations, which is now approaching half the eligible voters in provincial elections. In Ontario's October 2003 election, only one out of two eligible voters made it to the polls. And, voter turnout was far worse in Toronto's municipal election the following month: a mere 39 percent of the city's 1.6 million voters cast their ballots. But that's actually not bad considering that turnouts of 25 percent or less sometimes happen in municipal votes.

Manitoba's election in June 2003 had the worst turnout-53.9 percent--for the province in half a century.

Only 64 percent of eligible Nova Scotians voted in a highly contested election in August 2003 (but it was mid-summer and it did rain on Election Day), down from 75 percent in 1988.

In New Brunswick in 2003, voter turnout fell to 69 percent from 76 percent in 1999. In Quebec, which is the province usually with the highest voter participation, turnout dropped eight percent to 70 percent in the spring 2003 election won by Jean Charest's Liberals.

Federally, in the 2000 election, Canadians set a record low turnout of only 62.8%. Previously, the lowest turnout was in the election of 1896 (62.9%), when Sir Wilfrid Laurier swept the Conservatives out of power and began his 15-year reign as prime minister. Twenty years ago, the voter turnout in Canada was 69 percent, 30 years ago it was hovering between 75 and 76 percent, and 40 years ago it was 79 percent. The current turnout is among the lowest in all Western democracies.

Websites

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform--http://www.citizenasassembly.bc.ca/public

Fair Vote Canada--http:// www.fairvotecanada.org/

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance--http://www.idea.int/

Participatory Democracy Group--http://www.socialaction.ca/index.html

The Cynics were members of an ancient Greek school of philosophy. They attacked civilization for being an unnatural state that held no true values. They believed that happiness came from the simple, natural life, not from possessions or wealth. Through many twists and turns the word "cynic" has come to mean someone who is distrustful of human nature and motives. There are plenty of cynics in our midst: according to a 2002 poll, Canadians are more distrusting of their government than Americans are: more than half (51 percent) of Canadians surveyed said they have little or no trust at all in their federal government, compared with 30 percent in the United States.