Three cheers for partisanship

It seems a new word has reached the heights of profanity, vulgarity and inappropriateness in our political discourse.  The p-word.  Partisanship. 

In the U.S., President Obama has been trying to pursue a promise of putting an end to partisan bickering so that everyone can move forward together. In Canada, after December’s coalition talk Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has been laying down his conditions for bipartisan cooperation (having abandoned previous plans for tripartisan cooperation). Bipartisanship, non-partisanship, cooperation, collaboration — all lofty goals that paint a picture of cooperative government that’s really able to “get things done.” 

Unfortunately, a blind embrace of the “bipartisan spirit” or “setting aside our differences” and “working together” is not always healthy in a democracy and often results in poor policy choices and implementation. Extreme partisanship can be counterproductive. Good policies are too frequently opposed simply because they come from a different party. But partisanship can also be necessary and productive. Just as good policies can be undermined by excessive partisanship, bad policies can often result from excessive bipartisanship. 

Without opposition, a policy can often be implemented without sufficient scrutiny and reflection. South of the border, the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq both passed with enthusiastic bipartisan support. Neither was subject to the serious scrutiny that they merited because neither received any significant opposition. In the wake of Canada’s sponsorship scandal, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-11. As originally drafted, the bill was weak and ineffective. After weeks of partisan talking, bickering, compromise, and yes cooperation, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act emerged as a stronger law with legitimate protections for government whistle blowers.

What every democracy needs is principled partisanship. Political parties should not take shame in or be criticized for standing up for their principles. In Canada, the opposition parties were right to unite against the government in order to press for a stimulus package (even if the actual impetus for the alliance had more to do with preserving funding for opposition parties). Their opposition reflected the values of each party and those of the voters who elected them. In this context it would have been undemocratic for the opposition to support the budget in the name of bipartisan cooperation. Partisanship was necessary and beneficial.

Similarly, although I support economic stimulus in this climate, I don’t believe it is fair to accuse U.S. Republicans of “partisanship” for opposing the plan. Republicans believe that the stimulus will not work, that the key to a healthy economy is small government and low taxes. The Republicans in Congress ran on these ideas and were elected to pursue them. I happen to think that their opposition to the stimulus package is misguided, but it is not unprincipled or crass political manoeuvring. Just as it would have been undemocratic for the Liberals in Canada to support a budget without stimulus, it would be undemocratic for small-government Republicans to support massive spending.

The gravity of the current economic crisis is not a reason to set aside partisanship. When massive amounts of money are being spent and governments are involving themselves so profoundly in their economies, it is vital that shape, scope, and scale of government policies be carefully considered. In democracies this means debate and debate means partisanship. It’s time to take back the p-word.