One thing I have noticed about Canadian politics is that each party can easily be subverted by a small cadre of determined people, illustrative of Thomas Sowell’s comment that the barbarians are not at the gate. They are inside.A provincially registered corporation must have articles of incorporation, statutory shareholder rights, and bylaws that lay out how the rights of the shareholders are protected. Yet political parties have no such requirements. Each can create its own rules, and it doesn’t take much for a group to rig things such that they can take over control of party headquarters. Once in place, they control the show.I realized this had happened when I asked myself why all the major parties had adopted “green” policies. As a scientist, I found that, ever since they popped up, nothing they said made any scientific sense, beginning with the “global warming” scare and trying to put the blame on carbon dioxide, a trace gas. Or consider ocean levels rising by several millimetres a year without pointing out that the “rise” is well within the measurement error of tide measurements, which are further complicated by storm surges and other factors. Even the concept of a “global temperature” made no sense, as there are so many variables, including the lack of quality assurance and quality control and severe clustering of measuring sites, which introduce serious biases. To illustrate, after 20 years, nothing predicted by Al Gore in his propaganda piece, An Inconvenient Truth (which actually should have been titled Convenient Lies), has ever come true. Nothing.Yet, why was the Green Party platform so easily co-opted by the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals? One possible explanation is that people such as Gerald Butts discovered that influencing a party hierarchy could have far more effect on public policy than trying to persuade voters individually.True, I may just be spitballing here, but if I wanted to destroy a party, that is a path I certainly would consider. In fact, I have seen it from the other side. I used to be a member of the People’s Party of Canada, the party that says it stands for Fairness, Respect, Freedom and Responsibility. But earlier this year, the small group at headquarters decided to eliminate all riding-focused associations and instead create a province-wide one. By doing this, they took away local autonomy and, in effect, reinvented what already existed. A province-wide association is no different from the national party, including fundraising ability and a lack of connection with local issues. How could they do that? Because effective safeguards were absent. There were no rules strong enough to protect the autonomy of local members from a decision made at headquarters..The problem is not unique to the People’s Party. Other parties have internal rules, but rules alone do not prevent authority from becoming concentrated in too few hands or internal factions from taking control. Nor does there have to be some deliberate plan to infiltrate a party. If the structure allows a small group to override members, undermine elected representatives or pull the party away from its stated principles, the result can be much the same.The BC Conservatives may provide another example of the structural problem. Kerry-Lynne Findlay was legitimately elected leader by party members, although by only 51% to 49% on the final ballot. Yet within months, the caucus was coming apart. Perhaps the problem was not infiltration at all, but the rules themselves. Under the Westminster system, a government ultimately depends on the confidence of its elected members. It therefore seems reasonable that those MLAs should have a decisive role in choosing the person expected to lead them. They know who they can work with and who can hold the caucus together. The rapid return of John Rustad and other former caucus members after Findlay resigned suggests the Conservatives have recognized that unity is essential. The remaining question is whether they will change their rules to reduce the chance of the same thing happening again.I personally have no issue with a multi-party system. But that only works if each offers a different platform. Right now, BC has several that, if you covered your eyes and only listened to what they said, offer indistinguishable conservative values. Thus we end up with a true case of “splitting the vote”. Some may say, ‘Well, the People’s Party did/does that!’ No. The PPC platform differs substantially from that of the Conservative Party of Canada. Apply the same test to the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, however, and many of their policies are much harder to distinguish. Take Ontario, where I live. Doug Ford wraps himself in a Conservative blue cape, but he is as red as any Liberal on the inside.Here in Ontario, the colour and the name of the party in power may have changed, yet the policies have not. Now ask yourself how that could have happened and think about what I have already said, and then it starts to make sense. The problem may therefore be less about who wins an election than about who controls the organizations that decide what choices reach the ballot in the first place.
