Recently, the Economist magazine posted its Democracy Index 2013 and had Canada ranked eighth, scoring it a 9.07 out of 10. Is this something to be proud of? It ought to be, but it is difficult to picture in a country where voter turnout has been drastically declining and trust in government is at a record low. I don’t know how exactly they rated this index, but I wonder if they took into account many of the flaws in some of our democratic institutions we have today.

Canada is one the freest and most open countries in the world, but some ridiculous institutional norms are seriously threatening its credibility. The typical powerful political institutions that have defined democracies around the world, such as a Parliament, political parties, and individual public officials have all been given poor ratings in opinion polls. I wouldn’t disagree either, because some institutions provide incentives for the public to have little or no faith in Canadian politics.

A lot of these problems are taken from the fact that we have a purely majoritarian-themed electoral system: a system that is systematically designed to favour a majority government outcome even when a majority of the population would vote against the winning party. In the 2011 election, 61 per cent of people voted for parties other than the Conservatives, and yet the Conservatives hold a 57 per cent majority of seats in the House of Commons. In the 2008 election the Green Party received almost as many votes as the Bloc Quebecois but gained zero seats to the Blocs’ staggering 49-seat total.

You can see my point that our system allocates either an over or underrepresentation of results. Our current government is way overrepresented and its Conservative majority shouldn’t even be a majority government. This is a problem because many Canadians don’t feel properly represented in Ottawa in our current format of electoral system. Our system actually discourages smaller parties or independent candidates to run because they don’t stand a chance. It also discourages people with complex or mixed sets of values from even coming to the polls, hence the lower turnout rates.

Besides our electoral system, major institutional settings and rules in Parliament must also be reviewed for their damaging effects on Canadian politics. For instance, we should all be aware that we still have an unelected and unaccountable chamber in Parliament: the Canadian Senate, which our tax dollars pay for and still has a degree of authority over us. It’s the 21st century and yet we are using an 18th-century idea of a “democratic” chamber. All we hear about it in the news is scandal after scandal that lowers the transparency and trust in Parliament as a whole. Just look at the Patrick Brazeau or Mike Duffy scandals. Frankly, it’s making the public and me sick.

The parliamentary norm of party discipline is another terrible institution in Canadian politics. I don’t even understand its existence. It basically makes the MPs we elect end up becoming the employees of their parties’ leadership. Party discipline is the ability of the executive party to get all of its members to support initiatives and bills proposed by the leadership. If you don’t, the potential consequence is removal from the party caucus. The MPs or their constituents’ personal beliefs don’t matter, only the parties’ agendas do. In Canada there is a sense of “party over people” when it should be the other way around. How can the public have any faith in their MPs if they are restricted themselves? It’s not healthy for our democracy.

The political tone and culture of Ottawa is also disturbing; political life is currently all about partisanship and gaining the upper hand on your opponents, not about finding rational comprises and working together. Sure, during elections all parties are your opponents, but once the election is over so should be the bickering and fighting; it should be about doing what’s collectively best.

The funny thing about all of this is that Stephen Harper was once the man who advocated for strengthening Canadian democracy. He supported positive actions, such as: recall voting, more referendums, democratizing the Canadian Senate, and bringing a new tone and transparency to Ottawa. And what now? Even with a majority government he has done almost nothing. Harper may have credibility on his economic record but his record on democratic principles is abysmal. He has closed Parliament twice, continued the expanding powers of the Office of the Prime Minister at the expense of Parliament, and if anything has brought a sense of shadiness to Ottawa and grown impotence to the institution of Parliament.

The parliamentary process is supposed to be made up of lengthy and robust debates of bills between Members of Parliament across party lines. However, recently this is no longer the fact. Debates have been limited, or even cut off; the Conservative majority government has pumped through bills without much consultation or discussion from the opposition, acting as they were not even there. Majority governments govern with ease but that shouldn’t make them authoritarian in any way. Even Conservative backbencher MPs, whose original role in Parliament is to seriously question and analyze the bills proposed by the cabinet to hold them accountable, have turned into cheerleaders for Mr. Harper and his cabinet. They hold their dreams of becoming one of the inner elite cabinet members as their main priority. Parliament is truly irrelevant.

All these issues are harming Canadian democracy and they are part of the overall decline in faith and trust in the Canadian political landscape. We, as the next generation of future leaders, will be responsible for what’s next. Let’s all agree: an appointed Senate, parliamentary norm of party discipline, and a culture dominated by party politics and power must end. The hardest part is to actually make it happen and agree upon the next step.