I think we have a problem in this country about who we elect to represent us in the various legislatures. In this case I don’t mean ethnic or religious diversity, I mean diversity in the working experiences that are the background to their legislative endeavours.
The Conservative Party of Canada is about to elect a leader who has never worked at anything except politics. The current Prime Minister is not much better having been a teacher before politics, but at least he has that much. Most politicians are lawyers, political studies majors, or economists. There have been a few medical doctors although these days of medical shortages we may prefer that they had stuck to their professions. But where are the steel workers, the engineers, the scientists, the miners, the fishermen (fisherpersons?), or oil workers?
“A
conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first
time.”
- Alfred E. Wiggam
If our legislatures are to truly to represent the people who elect them, there must be more of these people. How can the law makers pass judgement on the labour movement without steel, auto and mining workers? How can these bodies make intelligent decisions of large procurements without engineers? How can they decide scientific policy without scientists? Oh, you can say that the various ministers have access to these specialists in the civil service. But civil servants don’t make laws or decide policy. As we have seen several times over the last few years, governments are prone to make decisions despite any input from experts. Just look at the Donald Trump and Covid, or most conservative movements and climate change.
“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”
So, why aren’t these vocationally diverse people not represented? It can’t be about the pay. Most workers would make more salary in a legislature that on a shop floor. It could be about the cost of entry into the election process where they have to spend money to get any name recognition. But surely attractive candidates could get some support from the political parties. Or could they? Could it be that political parties have a prejudice against these ‘ordinary’ people? Could a party that serves the interests of the lawyers, economists and political majors see these working people as not worthy of entering their hallowed ground? That ordinary people are to be ruled, not be rulers. Is that the attitude?
If we are to face the technical and scientific challenges or today and the future, it is imperative that we bring more expertise in other fields into out legislative bodies. Ways must be found to bring more diversity into those who make our laws and policies.
Food for thought, I think. Oh, that I was 30 years younger!
