The case against fixed terms

Stephen Harper, from the time he was the official opposition, has been pushing for a fixed term length to eliminate the ruling party (Liberals, at the time) practice of calling elections when their polls are up. Now that he is PM he has continued to promise it, yet he's gone against it and called an election when the Conservatives' polls went up. So much for his "integrity and transparency" platform.

I really love the fact that, under the parliamentary system, without fixed terms, the PM must at all times operate under the threat of a possible election if s/he starts getting out of hand. If the people have had enough, they can call on their representatives - the Members of Parliament - to topple the government and trigger an election. For this reason, I am very much against fixed term length as Harper is purportedly so fond of (in word if not in deed). Despite the opportunistic election-calling our system allows for, I'll take that any day over the problem fixed terms cause: that of a leader who can campaign for election, tell the people what they want to hear long enough to win the seat, then promptly turn up his/her nose at the people and run around like a little dictator until just before the next election. George W. Bush has been a prime example of this abuse, and frankly the gullibility of roughly half the American population has helped maximize such abuse and showcase the failings of a fixed-term system.

Moreover, I really do think the U.S. needs to come up with a more expedient process than impeachment for expunging a president. It needs to be much easier to initiate the process, and once started it needs to be fast-tracked with top priority. It's pathetic that it takes 2 years to get someone out of a 4-year seat, and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars to boot. In this situation, a sitting president knows that after the 2 year mark he can do pretty much anything he wants, because the people are powerless to put a stop to him before his term will be up anyway. This is exacerbated when a president is in his second term as Bush is, and as such doesn't have to worry about getting elected again either.

Even faster and cheaper than expediting the impeachment process, however, would be implementing confidence votes like they do here, and getting rid of fixed terms. There is no reason a president should be able to rule with an iron fist without facing some accountability. The government should live in constant fear that if they screw up bad enough the people will shove a boot up their a$$ posthaste. To me, that's a real democracy.

Canadians, you may feel that voting 3 times in just over 4 years is a little annoying. (I don't, because frankly I'm grateful for any opportunity to express my wishes about how I want the country to be run.) But you should think long and hard about what you are surrendering if you allow a move to fixed terms. One need only look south to see the kind of grief it can bring... this Canadian-American Canadian can tell you - it's not worth it.