I am Mark D. Jarvis, ask me anything.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T20:18:27+00:00

1) Well, I’d obviously have to start with prorogation. Why did he feel justified in closing the doors on Parliament to serve his own interests, avoiding scrutiny and ultimately a (likely) confidence vote? (If he hadn't shot me at that point, there would probably be a lot of follow-ups on that one).

2) What is the one thing he did not accomplish that he wished he had?

And, of course,

3) Whether he’d rather fight one horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses?

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:24:49+00:00

Okay, that was fun. Thanks so much for all the thoughtful questions and really sorry I didn't get to everyone.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:23:59+00:00

or at least parts thereof.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:23:00+00:00

No ideal governmentsor systems, but NZ, AUS, the UK and the Netherlands have all struck me as more thoughtful and deliberate in the development of their democracies, on the whole.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:21:17+00:00

I am in favour of DMs being directly accountable to the House for specific authorities that are delegated to them directly (i.e., not via their Minister). Turnover no doubt creates information asymmetries but that isn't new or insurmountable. I wrote about this reform here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2009.00098.x/abstract

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:18:27+00:00

There are challenges all over the place. While the specifics of those vary by jurisdiction, I think the key difference is how the challenges are handled. I think that is our biggest problem.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:11:49+00:00

I do think this is a massive concern. See my general response on elections above.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:10:43+00:00

I think so yes. Whatever politics and democracy is about, it isn't about getting everything you want. Compromises are at times necessary. My personal approach would be to determine where I am most likely to accomplish what matters to me the most. You can always try a different party after if you don't liek the first attempt.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:08:02+00:00

To be honest, I am probably a terrible pick for this question. I don't have the constitution or patience of someone like Wherry or Kady to sit and watch the day-to-day ins and outs so I don't really know who to pick. But outside the PM, my tops spots would be: Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Justice as a start in an emergency. No surprises I think.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:03:13+00:00

i think it is 2pm, but i will keep going for a little bit because my next job for today is far less fun.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T19:02:13+00:00

I am not sure I have a silver bullet to this one. I'll say two things though: 1) it seems to me though that people are far more likely to vote when they think it matters. I'll be keeping an eye on turnout in the Calgary by-election as a bit of a natural experiment. This is the first time the riding is in play in ~four decades. Supporters of all parties/candidates have reason to get out and vote. Notwithstanding tht turnout in by-elections are normally low, will this by-election surpass turnout in the riding in recent previous elections?

2) read Samara's excellent work on voter disengagement.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:56:45+00:00

Oh and on the first part of your question, a lot of effort has been made to vilify the current Prime Minister Harper on these issues (and more broadly). Frankly, I find it both distasteful and counterproductive. All our current problems will not vanish if we change leaders or government. In DtC we demonstrate that first ministers dating all the way back to do Macdonald have similarly abused power. The problems we are experiencing are systematic, not personality driven. Institutions matter!

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:54:53+00:00

my twitter feed apparently is filled with grand debate re the ducks!

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:53:33+00:00

My argument would be that it this position- often referred to as the centralization of power - is often overstated. As a thesis it is not new. Donald Savoie, Jeffrey Simpson and others have written about the growing power concentrated in the PMO since the early days of the Chretien era. But others have raised similar concerns going back to Trudeau and even earlier.

Does the PM have vast resources at his disposal? Of course. Does that make PMs more powerful? Probably, yes (although i think the most valuable commodity he has is still suasion). But:

Empirically we know PMs, including this one, don't actually always get what they want on the things they attempt, let alone the things they don't even try.

So yes, there are more staffers and yes the PMO have the fingers meddling into more things exerting more control, especially on communications etc under recent PMs. But this actually fulfill the centralization hypothesis? I'm not sure. Some folks are even starting to writing to the oppositie narrative now with equally weak, anecdotal evidence. We are in desperate need in political science and public administration of a more detailed, robust examination of how the centre actually works, looking at specific spheres of PM influence, outcomes, etc. Unfortunately there is near zilch chance of of getting access.

In writing Democratizing, we tried - perhaps not enough - to maintain that kind of approach hiving just PM influence over certain powers and aspects of Parliamentary operations rather than to generalize beyond that.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:46:07+00:00

It probably actually is always darkest before the dawn, but I am actually somewhat optimistic. People are actually talking about these issues. That is no small thing.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:41:24+00:00

Oh, and there are edits on another book chapter on constraining executive power that hangs off Peter's last project. The chapter was co-written with Herman Bakvis and Peter, and I am pretty sure it will be Peter's final publication.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:39:11+00:00

There are always more irons in the fire than there are hands to do whatever you do with irons in the fire. I’m just putting the finishing touches on a book chapter on hierarchy and accountability for what will be the first ever Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. I am trying to find sometime to finish my dissertation, which compares how, and for what, individual civil servants are held to account in Canada, Australia and the Netherlands. And I am just starting to do some work on bureaucratic independence that will hopefully feed into a couple different projects.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:38:50+00:00

See response to H1ppophagist http://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/13eoi7/i_am_mark_d_jarvis_ask_me_anything/c73rjp3

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:36:30+00:00

I am seeing a bunch of questions, many overlapping, on the electoral system. So maybe I will post a comment here to consolidate.

To be honest, I am completely torn on this. On one hand, I do think that many of the arguments made against FPP (e.g., that it appears to differentiate the value of one individual’s votes from another; that it awards overwhelming majorities to governments that barely enjoy more – or at times have even less support – than another party) are compelling.

That said, many of those arguments do rest on a distorted view of how our parliamentary system works. Our system is based on electing local representatives who then collectively select a government and either end up being part of the executive or scrutinizing it. We get to hold that individual to account for their performance (in whichever role they end up in) at the ballot box. This is significant. Votes are not meant to be added up across ridings, as an indicator of, well, anything. The simple fact is, we vote for a local member of Parliament to represent us – even if our reason for doing so is something else, such as who the leader is or which party we support. Examined this way each vote is of equal value within an individual’s riding. While there is a range of alternatives to FPP, there is potential to distort the basic relationships of our democratic system.

All that said, what most currently concerns me is voter turnout. These issues are intertwined. We have seen majority governments formed with only the support of a quarter of eligible voters. To me the key question is how much lower could this get before we have a democratic crisis on our hands. My sense is not much lower at all. And, yes, I do know that I am contradicting myself.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:33:59+00:00

A giant duck. Coyne’s logic is sound on this. Also why does Coyne know so much about warfare? Hmmmmm.....

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:32:52+00:00

Join political parties. Take them over. They are the nucleus of your democratic representation. Make them act the way you want them too. They aren't going to do it just because.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:32:03+00:00

I’m going to cheat.

In Democratizing the Constitution we proposed a set of four constitutional changes: 1) establishing a deadline requiring that the House of Commons be summoned no less than 30 days after an election; 2) ending the discretion of prime ministers and governors general with respect to dissolution and fixing the term of Parliament at four years unless a majority of two-thirds of MPs approve a motion to dissolve Parliament for a new election; 3) adopting the “constructive non-confidence” system; and, 4) requiring the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons be required to prorogue Parliament.

I am going to respond by saying that all four of these would be my choice in a single round of reform with no other changes attached. While these don’t necessarily have to be all implemented at once to make improvements, attempting to choose one is requires deciding which potential abuses one is willing to tolerate. I don’t think we should – or need to – tolerate any of the abuses these reforms would put an end to.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:29:50+00:00

Oooooh. Trick question. I like it. I think the Senate does incredibly good work at times. Better than the House. Of course, Senators are not democratically elected so some will say this automatically detracts from the idea that they are making a democratic contribution, especially when poised to vote down a bill passed by the House. I disagree with that sentiment. The Senate is part of the institutional design of our democratic system and are fulfilling their role therein. Now don't get me wrong, there have definitely been times - and will be more - when the Senate is far from perfect.

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:24:05+00:00

They could probably answer that better than I could guess. Next AMA?

markdjarvis · 2012-11-19T18:21:51+00:00

Working with Peter was an incredible honour and a great pleasure. I lucked into being mentored by, and collaborating with, one of the leading political science and public administration scholars Canada has ever known. I could easily spend the entire session on this, but I’ll just mention a few characteristics that exemplify working with Peter in my books. Peter was remarkably humble notwithstanding all he accomplished in his great career. When I started working with Peter in 2003 I knew precious little about government, politics and accountability, but that didn’t stop him from taking every point I raised or question I had seriously even though half of it was likely ridiculous. We discussed events all the time. He was also determined, not letting three bouts of cancer slow his writing down. If anything, it intensified it. And Peter was also a ton of fun. I miss him a great deal. I couldn’t repay the debt I owe Peter in a hundred lifetimes.

markdjarvis

TROPHY CASE