What Decorum Means in Politics

John Ivison gets it wrong. Which is a shame, because he has lots to contribute, and he himself will bemoan the loss of rational debate on complex issues.

But Mr. Ivison gets it wrong on the structure of debate and decorum in the House of Commons. In a recent article for the National Post, he's thankful any motion to improve decorum is doomed to fail. In his words, "The House of Commons was never intended to resemble a lending library."

Of course not.

"But God forbid decorum is ever imposed on the House. As the English Conservative, Lord Hailsham, once said: “Politics should be fun – politicians have no right to be pompous or po-faced. The moment politics become dull, democracy is in danger.”"


Let's deconstruct this a bit here in a few different ways.


Firstly, the House of Commons should not resemble a lending library, with incessant shushing and sanctimoniously reticent bespectacled clerks. However, it does resemble and is a room of sanctimoniously hyper-partisan politicians.


Decorum doesn't have to mean and I argue it shouldn't mean "getting along". It should be about sticking to the issue. Exploring the issue, talking about the issue. Presenting diverse perspectives over top an implicit assumption that we spend millions on representatives to deliberate on the best course of action on an issue of public import. And we improve the quality of that deliberation by getting rid of ad-hominem attacks, by getting rid of the king-of-the-hill tribalism whose effects include the muzzling of evidence-based policy-making and the current Harper government's many changes that would best be seen as being two-fold A) disadvantaging any critic in self-preservation and B) reshaping the country's operative framework according to ideology.

These are stumbling factors, and I place them under the label of "ideology" and "partisanship". I say them pejoratively. Ideology I often equate with shallow thinking, with not being able to give credit where credit is due when looking at an issue, and with generally having a diluted appreciation for complexity. Partisanship I see as the favouring of tribal interests ahead of coming together to have a rational debate and expressing diverse views in a constructive manner. What makes debate constructive is decorum.

Decorum should be about removing those stumbling factors from the processes of parliamentary democracy. That is, even if MP Nathan Cullen isn't articulating it the way I would want him to,  is advocating.

I criticize Mr. Ivison in order to call him back to something he wrote last year. When MP Bryan Hyer introduced randomized seating as a way to reduce tribalism. Mr. Ivison wrote,

"The day may not yet have arrived for randomized seating but there are other measures put forward by Mr. Hyer and others that could increase cross-party co-operation. For example, there is a petition to gain support for a change that would allow MPs of different parties to sponsor the same private members’ bill...

The cross-party co-operation campaign calls for the standing orders of parliament to be changed to allow co-sponsors, so that the merits of the idea becomes more important than where it originates. This seems a sensible reform that would enable more private members’ bills to pass and make the role of MPs more meaningful...

The rules of parliament are not conducive to walking a mile in the shoes of MPs of other parties. Yet even in the middle of the omnibus vote marathon there was kindred spirit. “John Baird is the kid with gum on his nose,” wrote the NDP’s Megan Leslie, referring to the Foreign Minister’s horsing around in the House. The tribalism is not so innate that it cannot be transcended by the common cause of MPs representing their respective communities. "

 This is an admission, firstly, that tribalism (or partisanship as I use the word) is a stumbling factor to coming together and fulfilling the role of Member of Parliament. This secondly assumes there is a shared role for politicians. There isn't.

As a result, the political party gains inordinate influence on the behaviour of politicians and this directly affects decorum and the effectiveness of the House as a legislative body.

I don't mind that John Ivison ended on a cheery note that there is a basic level of decency and collegiality among politicians. What I mind is that politics is a serious business. Can be fun, sure, okay. But it is the one of the most, if not the most consequential profession: legislator.

Let's go back to Lord Hailsham. He was a lord in a parliamentary system that oversaw the definition of Dickensian, whose evolution did not include universal suffrage until the 20th century. The powerful are usually well-insulated from the consequences of their role in bad government.

We can analyze what good government is and ought to be, and decorum is a major part of it. Not for getting along, horsing around or joking around, but for sticking to the issue, and not giving in to the pettiness that stumbles good-faith discussion of complex issues.

One thing to end on, if discussion of complex issues is dull, we are simply not electing the right people to government.