Article content continued

Choosing the free expression of opinion — however blatant — as paramount, leads to a situation where parliamentary politics are an extension of election politics run as a campaign by the “war room.” Rough politics are presented as signs of robust democracy.

Winning is relatively straightforward under a two-party system. Every issue, no matter how complex, is reduced to a simple “yes” or “no” — a referendum on the government. Attack ads demean opponents as well as positions.

If an attack is not sufficient to move opposing voters to the other side, it may disillusion them to the point that they don’t vote at all.

In a multiparty system this is harder but can still be done. Opposition is already divided; the task is to accentuate this.

Set parties against each other. Don’t be caught between them. If in power, trivialize opponents with charges of inexperience. If in opposition, highlight perks of travel and living expenses to show incumbents as out-of-touch. Feed your supporters well; keep the pack with you and you can win with a plurality.

This is what Canadians experienced in the last election.

It is what our current government vowed to replace in ending first-past-the-post. Polarization backfired when the former government tried to impale its main opponent on an issue of principle: the niqab in Quebec, vaulting the third party into first place.

Canadians became battle fatigued and sought another approach.

It’s not surprising that those who used overkill in that election demand a referendum on change. A referendum can kill an initiative by multiplying options that divide supporters. But just as often, referendums have been used by leaders at the height of popularity to override checks-and-balances, giving themselves extended powers. Opponents on this issue may not wish to give government a tool that can be used against them on another.