“A good diagnosis, but no cure.” That’s University of Toronto political science PhD candidate Paul Edwin James Thomas‘s summary of Whipped: the secret world of party discipline.
In a thoughtful critique posted following last night’s screening of the documentary in Ottawa, Thomas - who is studying theories about MP behaviour - writes that Whipped “raises some important questions about the system of parliamentary democracy in Canada as a whole.”
However, he states the documentary seems “incomplete” without proposals for reform and “does leave the impression that a system with much less discipline could be desirable, even though it would have substantial trade-offs.”
That’s a valuable observation - one I’ve heard at almost all of Whipped‘s screenings. In fact, I did consider including some of those proposals in the documentary. But I decided not to.
That may have been the wrong decision. However, here’s why I made it: Whipped is meant to be a conversation starter rather than a definitive prescription for what ails Canadian politics.
It’s meant to provide Canadians with honest, firsthand accounts of how that system works and its complexities.
It’s meant to encourage a debate about party discipline - and encourage citizens to question whether we like its outcomes.
Once that conversation has happened, Canadians can decide if and how we want to loosen the amount of discipline in this country’s legislatures.
But until then, I think discussions about how to go about doing that may be premature.
Nevertheless, I’m very interested in what experts such as Thomas and audience members have to say about how party discipline could be reformed.
It’s the kind of conversation I’m looking forward to having tomorrow evening at the Toronto premiere of Whipped and at next week’s screenings in Kitchener-Waterloo and Thunder Bay.
I hope to see you there!
P.S. Thomas also describes data showing a greater level of dissent in the United Kingdom’s parliament as “misleading.”
In addition, he writes “while the most rebellious British MP, Phillip Hollobone is certainly more rebellious than BC’s biggest rebel, he is the exception.”
While it’s true the level of dissent in the United Kingdom is low, it’s still considerably higher than the level of dissent in Canada and British Columbia.
Moreover, while Hollobone may be an exceptional, he’s certainly not unique. As the British Website Public Whip shows, there are other MPs in the United Kingdom whose level of dissent is in or approaches the double digits - something that just doesn’t seem to happen in most parts of this country.
In fact, according to the Globe and Mail, James Bezan - the most rebellious federal lawmaker between June 2, 20011 and January 28, 2026 - votes with his party “nearly 99 per cent of the time.”
{ 0 comments… add one now }