COLUMN: Think Again – Exploring the limits of party loyalty

Political parties aren’t mentioned in the 1867 Constitution Act.

It’s an interesting omission since nowadays it’s nearly impossible to get elected as an MP or MLA if you aren’t running as an endorsed candidate with a political party. Most independent candidates simply don’t have the name recognition or resources necessary to make a credible run for Parliament or the Legislature.

In contemporary federal and provincial elections, most people vote based on the party rather than on the individual candidate. While being an incumbent MP or MLA does provide a small boost in support, incumbents will still likely go down to defeat if their party becomes too unpopular. That’s a tough pill to swallow for an incumbent who gets dragged down by his or her own party.

Human nature being what it is, it’s not surprising that some politicians are less loyal to their parties than others. Some are mavericks who push back on policies that are unpopular with their constituents while others go so far as to quit their caucus and become an independent MP or MLA. Still others switch parties entirely, and, on rare occasions, make the switch more than once.

A fascinating new book examines this issue of party loyalty and gives readers a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of political parties. No I in Team: Party Loyalty in Canadian Politics by Alex Marland, Jared Wesley, and Mireille Lalancette provides an extensive analysis of the different ways in which politicians interact with their respective parties.

The authors start by analyzing the twin factors of party message discipline and caucus management. They point out that with the advent of television and the internet, party message discipline has become more tightly controlled than ever. Political parties tend to frown on candidates who freelance or who stray from party talking points. Similarly, once elected, there’s a huge amount of emphasis on ensuring that everyone in caucus stays united.

While most MPs and MLAs generally fall into the category of team players, a not-so-insignificant number become party mavericks. A maverick is a politician who remains within caucus, but who often goes off message and sometimes even votes against the party’s position. Current Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is a prime example of a party maverick, since he has been known to criticize his own party. Nevertheless, Erskine-Smith and other mavericks know there’s a limit to how far they can go, and they still vote with their colleagues most of the time.

Where things get really interesting is when the authors talk about politicians who leave their caucus or even switch parties entirely. Becoming an independent typically shortens an MP’s political career and it’s rare for them to get re-elected, although former Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould was a notable exception.

As for switching parties, the long-term impact of this decision on a politician’s career largely depends on whether the MP is joining a party on an upswing. If so, MPs who switch parties can lengthen their career in politics. Nevertheless, party switchers often find it difficult to adjust to life in a new caucus, since it’s unlikely their new colleagues are going to trust them right away.

Unfortunately, No I in Team was published before the recent floor crossings to Mark Carney’s Liberal government took place. Thus, we’ll have to wait for a second edition before we can read the authors’ analysis of former Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu’s bizarre decision to cross the floor to the Liberals.

No I in Team provides readers with some useful insights into the limits of party loyalty. For those who are interested in politics, this book is well worth reading.

Michael Zwaagstra is a teacher and deputy mayor of Steinbach. He can be reached at mzwaagstra@shaw.ca.