What do you think?
Rate this book
Tragedy in the Commons: Former Members of Parliament Speak Out About Canada's Failing Democracy
In Tragedy in the Commons, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan, founders of the non-partisan think tank Samara, draw on an astonishing eighty exit interviews with former Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum to unearth surprising observations about the practice of politics in Canada. Though Canada is at the top of international rankings of democracies, Canadians themselves increasingly don’t see politics as a way to solve society’s problems. Small wonder. In the news, they see grandstanding in the House of Commons and MPs pursuing agendas that don’t always make sense to the people who elected them. But elected officials make critical choices about how this wildly diverse country functions today and how it will thrive in the future. They direct billions of dollars in public funding and craft the laws that have allowed Canada to lead the way internationally. Even with so much at stake, citizens—voters—are turning away. How did one of the world’s most functional democracies go so very wrong? In Tragedy in the Commons, MPs describe arriving at their political careers almost by accident; few say they aspired to be in politics before it “happened” to them. In addition, almost without fail, each MP describes the tremendous influence of their political from the manipulation of the nomination process to enforced voting in the House and in committees, the unseen hand of the party dominates every aspect of the MP’s existence. Loat and MacMillan Just what do we want Members of Parliament to be doing? To whom are they accountable? And should parties be trusted with the enormous power they wield with such little oversight or citizen involvement? With unprecedented access to the perspective and experience of Canada’s public leaders, Tragedy in the Commons concludes by offering solutions for improving the way politics works in Canada, and how all Canadians can reinvigorate a democracy that has lost its way, its purpose and the support of the public it is meant to serve.
276 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 2014
20 people are currently reading
500 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
March 15, 2015
Tragedy in the Commons is an expanded compilation of the MP Exit Interview report produced by Samara Canada which offers a distinct insider view to life in Canada’s Parliament through the eyes of former parliamentarians.
Through dozens of intense interviews the authors collected an image of the life for Canadian politicians in our national body. What Loat and MacMillan discover is in no way particularly flattering to our grand national institution and in fact hints a deep rot or dysfunction in Canadian democracy.
The title of the book is a direct allusion to the economic concept of the tragedy of the commons. To briefly summarize the idea, with a common good there is a benefit for all to preserve the resource for the future, but none of the stakeholders have the incentive to not exploit the resource to full advantage contrasted to his/her peers. As a result the resource is exploited to its complete ruination because the best interest of the individual is so completely at odds with the long-term interest of the collective.
This reference is emphasized by Loat and MacMillan. As they detail the litany of problems in the House of Commons, arguably building towards crisis, they refer to the simple fact that any one politician is powerless to influence the current political culture despite the fact that it serves their own interests. The forces of status quo keep Members of Parliament from obeying their own consciences and upholding their own rights.
Each chapter of the book addresses an area of political life that any MP must navigate: winning nominations, elections, conduct within the House of Commons, committee work, relations with their party and leadership, and even the basic understanding of what an MP is. The MPs interviewed are drawn from all political parties, from government, from opposition, and come from many different walks of life.
I experienced a number of strong emotions while reading this book. The two that stand out the most is a profound anger and sadness. Anger stemmed from both my normal frustration at our calcified House of Commons, but also the seemingly futile efforts of good men and women toiling away with little recognition. For example, Gary Meratsy (LPC – Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, SK) a strong MP who represented his community well and left the House of Commons after a very short career because he felt he could make a bigger difference in the private sector. The authors paint a picture of well-meaning public servants thwarted time and time again by party leadership and the gamesmanship of politics. Current practices do not foster good governance or oversight, such as the treatment of committee memberships, but serve to centralize power.
The book is a shocking revelation to the true nature of our democracy. Despite their best wishes and efforts MPs are relegated increasingly ceremonial roles, and according to the authors, must eke out some specialist area of expertise or pet project to occupy themselves when not dealing with the routine business of aiding constituents in dealing with our federal bureaucracy. But while many MPs embrace this role Loat and MacMillan point out that gaining access to government services through political connections would be called corruption elsewhere in the world and that these pet projects are really only symptoms of MPs’ inability to influence the governing of the nation.
The chief criticism, it seems to me, that the authors level at our political system is that our political culture no longer supports the idea of politicians or public service and that our servants in the form of MPs no longer actually understand their duty. It is a frightening revelation that offers stark reminder of the erosion of democratic life.
The Tragedy in the Commons should be mandatory reading for any person interested in running in 2015’s federal election, or perhaps any office in the provincial legislatures. There is something fundamentally wrong with our politics and government. Who better to learn about it than from those who served within it at its heart? Sadly, the conclusions that Samara’s founders point to suggest that the crisis is interconnected with several independent problems with no simple or easy solution. MacMillan and Loat offer some suggestions in their concluding chapter as to what might be done to ensure a trust is created for Canada’s Commons, but as the title indicates, the tragedy is that abuse of the commons is nearly inevitable as there will always be those who will exploit it for their short-term gain over the mindful stewards.
You can follow me on Twitter @SLee_OT or at my blog at http://theorangetory.blogspot.ca/
Through dozens of intense interviews the authors collected an image of the life for Canadian politicians in our national body. What Loat and MacMillan discover is in no way particularly flattering to our grand national institution and in fact hints a deep rot or dysfunction in Canadian democracy.
The title of the book is a direct allusion to the economic concept of the tragedy of the commons. To briefly summarize the idea, with a common good there is a benefit for all to preserve the resource for the future, but none of the stakeholders have the incentive to not exploit the resource to full advantage contrasted to his/her peers. As a result the resource is exploited to its complete ruination because the best interest of the individual is so completely at odds with the long-term interest of the collective.
This reference is emphasized by Loat and MacMillan. As they detail the litany of problems in the House of Commons, arguably building towards crisis, they refer to the simple fact that any one politician is powerless to influence the current political culture despite the fact that it serves their own interests. The forces of status quo keep Members of Parliament from obeying their own consciences and upholding their own rights.
Each chapter of the book addresses an area of political life that any MP must navigate: winning nominations, elections, conduct within the House of Commons, committee work, relations with their party and leadership, and even the basic understanding of what an MP is. The MPs interviewed are drawn from all political parties, from government, from opposition, and come from many different walks of life.
I experienced a number of strong emotions while reading this book. The two that stand out the most is a profound anger and sadness. Anger stemmed from both my normal frustration at our calcified House of Commons, but also the seemingly futile efforts of good men and women toiling away with little recognition. For example, Gary Meratsy (LPC – Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, SK) a strong MP who represented his community well and left the House of Commons after a very short career because he felt he could make a bigger difference in the private sector. The authors paint a picture of well-meaning public servants thwarted time and time again by party leadership and the gamesmanship of politics. Current practices do not foster good governance or oversight, such as the treatment of committee memberships, but serve to centralize power.
The book is a shocking revelation to the true nature of our democracy. Despite their best wishes and efforts MPs are relegated increasingly ceremonial roles, and according to the authors, must eke out some specialist area of expertise or pet project to occupy themselves when not dealing with the routine business of aiding constituents in dealing with our federal bureaucracy. But while many MPs embrace this role Loat and MacMillan point out that gaining access to government services through political connections would be called corruption elsewhere in the world and that these pet projects are really only symptoms of MPs’ inability to influence the governing of the nation.
The chief criticism, it seems to me, that the authors level at our political system is that our political culture no longer supports the idea of politicians or public service and that our servants in the form of MPs no longer actually understand their duty. It is a frightening revelation that offers stark reminder of the erosion of democratic life.
The Tragedy in the Commons should be mandatory reading for any person interested in running in 2015’s federal election, or perhaps any office in the provincial legislatures. There is something fundamentally wrong with our politics and government. Who better to learn about it than from those who served within it at its heart? Sadly, the conclusions that Samara’s founders point to suggest that the crisis is interconnected with several independent problems with no simple or easy solution. MacMillan and Loat offer some suggestions in their concluding chapter as to what might be done to ensure a trust is created for Canada’s Commons, but as the title indicates, the tragedy is that abuse of the commons is nearly inevitable as there will always be those who will exploit it for their short-term gain over the mindful stewards.
You can follow me on Twitter @SLee_OT or at my blog at http://theorangetory.blogspot.ca/
May 26, 2017
An interesting read. The interviews with former MPs were fascinating, and I genuinely didn't realize that some of these problems existed -- practically no orientation or training for MPs, no direction on how they should occupy themselves, and reluctance among veteran MPs to provide much guidance. Also interesting was the MPs' perception of their own role in the political system, and their reluctance to see themselves as implicated in the system's dysfunction.
Other problems the MPs point out are pretty apparent to any politically aware Canadian -- increasing control by the Prime Minister's Office and party leadership, as well as less ability for MPs to speak freely in the House and vote against party lines.
The conclusions drawn by the authors were mostly apt, though I found the final chapter's attempt to come up with solutions a bit weak, probably because the MPs themselves didn't offer many tangible suggestions. The strength of Tragedy in the Commons lies in what the MPs themselves said, so when the authors are forced to stray from the text of their interviews, the book struggles a bit.
Other problems the MPs point out are pretty apparent to any politically aware Canadian -- increasing control by the Prime Minister's Office and party leadership, as well as less ability for MPs to speak freely in the House and vote against party lines.
The conclusions drawn by the authors were mostly apt, though I found the final chapter's attempt to come up with solutions a bit weak, probably because the MPs themselves didn't offer many tangible suggestions. The strength of Tragedy in the Commons lies in what the MPs themselves said, so when the authors are forced to stray from the text of their interviews, the book struggles a bit.
April 2, 2014
The authors have presented a refreshing and rare analysis of political process that provides clarity, balance, and concretely pragmatic recommendations for change. No reader will be left feeling free from the imperative of personal action to contribute to those changes.
Building on the unique strategy of actually listening at length to front-line parliamentarians, Loat and MacMillan have humanized rather than demonized those we elect, and thereby avoided the typical rants about broken systems and callous politicians. Nonetheless,having noted the personal struggles, the ill-defined institutional processes, and the infinite complexities of running a country and finding consensus, it is clear that fundamental change in both individual conduct and organizational structures is essential. And, the greatest likelihood of successful outcomes will lie with an active citizenry that gives the necessary courage to MP's to refine and reassert their roles, to resist the dominance of authoritarian leadership, and to establish once again the respect for Parliamentary purpose over the seeking of pure power.
Of particular irony within the consistency of MP observations, regardless of party affiliation, is that they saw themselves as integrally different from those embarrassing "performers" in Question Period. But too often they felt pressured to "applaud", and feared the consequences of not falling into line themselves. Loat and MacMillan give pause to consider the role of traditional media in putting so much emphasis on the 45 minutes of Question Period, and so little on where the real work gets done. Noted as well is the almost desperate fear many MP's have of being pounced upon for independent thinking that media seems routinely to convey as "tantamount to treason". the authors have in fact done an excellent job of citing interviews, political essays and journals, in-depth research, and various media sources to trace the diminishing role of the MP. Yet their documentation never becomes laden with statistical analysis or the obtuseness of scholarly tomes that might leave one not knowing where to start. The direction is clear, the recommendations pragmatic, and the expectations achievable.
In fact, the immense merit of the book is that it states the complexity of the issues with clarity, reviews the root causes of the "tragedy" concisely but comprehensively, and most importantly, delineates the direction needed and the actions to be taken by all the players.
In summary, Tragedy in the Commons offers thoughtful balance while infusing hope and delivering a critical call to action in readily available format.
Building on the unique strategy of actually listening at length to front-line parliamentarians, Loat and MacMillan have humanized rather than demonized those we elect, and thereby avoided the typical rants about broken systems and callous politicians. Nonetheless,having noted the personal struggles, the ill-defined institutional processes, and the infinite complexities of running a country and finding consensus, it is clear that fundamental change in both individual conduct and organizational structures is essential. And, the greatest likelihood of successful outcomes will lie with an active citizenry that gives the necessary courage to MP's to refine and reassert their roles, to resist the dominance of authoritarian leadership, and to establish once again the respect for Parliamentary purpose over the seeking of pure power.
Of particular irony within the consistency of MP observations, regardless of party affiliation, is that they saw themselves as integrally different from those embarrassing "performers" in Question Period. But too often they felt pressured to "applaud", and feared the consequences of not falling into line themselves. Loat and MacMillan give pause to consider the role of traditional media in putting so much emphasis on the 45 minutes of Question Period, and so little on where the real work gets done. Noted as well is the almost desperate fear many MP's have of being pounced upon for independent thinking that media seems routinely to convey as "tantamount to treason". the authors have in fact done an excellent job of citing interviews, political essays and journals, in-depth research, and various media sources to trace the diminishing role of the MP. Yet their documentation never becomes laden with statistical analysis or the obtuseness of scholarly tomes that might leave one not knowing where to start. The direction is clear, the recommendations pragmatic, and the expectations achievable.
In fact, the immense merit of the book is that it states the complexity of the issues with clarity, reviews the root causes of the "tragedy" concisely but comprehensively, and most importantly, delineates the direction needed and the actions to be taken by all the players.
In summary, Tragedy in the Commons offers thoughtful balance while infusing hope and delivering a critical call to action in readily available format.
October 13, 2020
Usually I write my reviews without a ton of reference to what's going on in the world. Isn't the magic of books that they are their own little world, sufficient unto themselves? But I don't think I can talk about this book without mentioning that I read it in 2020, shortly before the American presidential election, and during the second term of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government here in Canada.
Canada is weird place sometimes (behold my hot take). This book sums up a series of exit interviews with Members of Parliament from all the major Canadian political parties who just finished holding office, and pretty much all of them proclaim that they never wanted to get into politics and that their community/the party strong armed them into it. Unlike most other countries, there's not a particular profession or set of alumni that dominates the political class, like engineers, doctors or lawyers, but all these former politicians are uniformly reluctant to suggest that they ever actively sought power and influence.
And the thesis of this book is that the Canadian parliamentary system is broken, but Loat and MacMillan suggest that individual politicians seem to see themselves as powerless and victims of those problems, rather than their authors. There's a strange mix, they suggest, of politicians seeing themselves as powerless, but also being incented to behave in ways that benefit themselves in the short term, rather than make difficult and lasting change to the system. The title comes from the fable of the tragedy of the commons.
However.
Though many of the problems described here are real (too much power centralized in the Prime Minister and his hired staff, not enough understanding of how government works before they arrive, not enough freedom to vote outside party lines, etc), many of these problems seem rather quaint in comparison to the problems going on south of our border right now. It's true that Canadians could (maybe should) be more engaged voters, and that our current system allows a Prime Minister to have tight control over what MPs say in question period and in public, and that committees are not used to their fullest potential. Loat and MacMillan don't address the problems inherent in our first-past-the-post system,* but even though we have a government that lost the popular vote and has all of the problems above, the Canadian government is still doing a pretty good job. All of these problems are real, and deserve attention, but they require tweaks, not a full overhaul of how our government functions. And given the generally good Federal response to the pandemic and the general steadiness of the Canadian spirit, this book was rather funny to read in this moment. Like, yes there are things to fix, but if these are our biggest problems, we can probably breathe a bit of a sigh of relief.
*I'm pretty sure this will never change. As a Canadian political strategist once told me, "Electoral reform is for losers." What party would get rid of the system that got them into power?
Canada is weird place sometimes (behold my hot take). This book sums up a series of exit interviews with Members of Parliament from all the major Canadian political parties who just finished holding office, and pretty much all of them proclaim that they never wanted to get into politics and that their community/the party strong armed them into it. Unlike most other countries, there's not a particular profession or set of alumni that dominates the political class, like engineers, doctors or lawyers, but all these former politicians are uniformly reluctant to suggest that they ever actively sought power and influence.
And the thesis of this book is that the Canadian parliamentary system is broken, but Loat and MacMillan suggest that individual politicians seem to see themselves as powerless and victims of those problems, rather than their authors. There's a strange mix, they suggest, of politicians seeing themselves as powerless, but also being incented to behave in ways that benefit themselves in the short term, rather than make difficult and lasting change to the system. The title comes from the fable of the tragedy of the commons.
However.
Though many of the problems described here are real (too much power centralized in the Prime Minister and his hired staff, not enough understanding of how government works before they arrive, not enough freedom to vote outside party lines, etc), many of these problems seem rather quaint in comparison to the problems going on south of our border right now. It's true that Canadians could (maybe should) be more engaged voters, and that our current system allows a Prime Minister to have tight control over what MPs say in question period and in public, and that committees are not used to their fullest potential. Loat and MacMillan don't address the problems inherent in our first-past-the-post system,* but even though we have a government that lost the popular vote and has all of the problems above, the Canadian government is still doing a pretty good job. All of these problems are real, and deserve attention, but they require tweaks, not a full overhaul of how our government functions. And given the generally good Federal response to the pandemic and the general steadiness of the Canadian spirit, this book was rather funny to read in this moment. Like, yes there are things to fix, but if these are our biggest problems, we can probably breathe a bit of a sigh of relief.
*I'm pretty sure this will never change. As a Canadian political strategist once told me, "Electoral reform is for losers." What party would get rid of the system that got them into power?
September 19, 2016
Great book for policy wonks and anyone who wants to understand how the Canadian parliamentary system works in present day.
The positive aspects about the book were :
-Very well researched: They have compiled the interviews of 80+ MPs, thus, the book offers evidence based policy discussions.
- Organization of chapters made it very easy to follow the book.
- It gets into a lot of the minutiae of policies and is not vague or broad.
- Loaded with so many real world examples, no abstractions.
- The book does not offer punditry-type solutions but raises thought provoking questions and guides the reader to the answers.
- Additionally, I have to give credit to the authors for ensuring that the book is very non partisan. It is rare these days to find writers covering politics, who can ensure that their own political biases are not reflected in their writings. With the case of this book, I did not find any political preferences or favoritism.
That being said, I don't necessarily agree with every analysis. For example, they point at how there is a lack of ambition in politicians which is demonstrated by the fact that most MPs enter politics at a later age or do not have an education in politics/law etc.
To me an MPs should be someone whose career guides them towards politics/public service based on their experiences, likes, dislikes and things they want to change. Expecting politicians to enter politics at a young age also seems a strange concept, as you barely know what you want for yourself at such an impressionable age and in a globalized world, where opportunities are endless. Another draw back of entering politics at an early age is the constraints that the party enforces upon its members. We need our MPs to be people who, in their early careers, are open to new ideas, have made mistakes along the way and were trying to figure out for themselves whether they are the left/ center or right side versus them being pigeon-holed in one corner at the early stage of their career and just having to toe the party's line. It is also a positive aspect of Canadian society that we don't have political dynasties and many children of politicians decide to venture in other areas. Perhaps it is different from our neighbors to the south of the border, but I feel Canada is better for that.
On several other aspects including the lack of voting power of individual MPs, I found myself nodding. Greater autonomy needs to be provided to MPs to exercise, their votes and parties promoting MPs who disagree to "chicken out" by not voting is a surely damaging Canadian democracy. However, I do also think it would be a bit of an organizational nightmare for the PM, to get everyone on the same page about every issue. In USA, it takes years to pass laws and Canadian PMs are able to achieve much more domestically, it appears, perhaps because of this control on voting.
Overall, a very engrossing book.
The positive aspects about the book were :
-Very well researched: They have compiled the interviews of 80+ MPs, thus, the book offers evidence based policy discussions.
- Organization of chapters made it very easy to follow the book.
- It gets into a lot of the minutiae of policies and is not vague or broad.
- Loaded with so many real world examples, no abstractions.
- The book does not offer punditry-type solutions but raises thought provoking questions and guides the reader to the answers.
- Additionally, I have to give credit to the authors for ensuring that the book is very non partisan. It is rare these days to find writers covering politics, who can ensure that their own political biases are not reflected in their writings. With the case of this book, I did not find any political preferences or favoritism.
That being said, I don't necessarily agree with every analysis. For example, they point at how there is a lack of ambition in politicians which is demonstrated by the fact that most MPs enter politics at a later age or do not have an education in politics/law etc.
To me an MPs should be someone whose career guides them towards politics/public service based on their experiences, likes, dislikes and things they want to change. Expecting politicians to enter politics at a young age also seems a strange concept, as you barely know what you want for yourself at such an impressionable age and in a globalized world, where opportunities are endless. Another draw back of entering politics at an early age is the constraints that the party enforces upon its members. We need our MPs to be people who, in their early careers, are open to new ideas, have made mistakes along the way and were trying to figure out for themselves whether they are the left/ center or right side versus them being pigeon-holed in one corner at the early stage of their career and just having to toe the party's line. It is also a positive aspect of Canadian society that we don't have political dynasties and many children of politicians decide to venture in other areas. Perhaps it is different from our neighbors to the south of the border, but I feel Canada is better for that.
On several other aspects including the lack of voting power of individual MPs, I found myself nodding. Greater autonomy needs to be provided to MPs to exercise, their votes and parties promoting MPs who disagree to "chicken out" by not voting is a surely damaging Canadian democracy. However, I do also think it would be a bit of an organizational nightmare for the PM, to get everyone on the same page about every issue. In USA, it takes years to pass laws and Canadian PMs are able to achieve much more domestically, it appears, perhaps because of this control on voting.
Overall, a very engrossing book.
February 24, 2023
Our political system in Canada is a mess.
May 28, 2019
Insightful book on the state of Canada’s elected government, including ideas on how to improve the system across all political parties.
July 18, 2020
In looking for a work that analysis the deficiencies of our government, Tragedy in the Commons sets itself up as a great resource for such a task. Having interviewed 80 former Members of Parliament about their time in office, including former Prime Ministers and Party Leaders, Loat and MacMillan had access to first hand accounts on which to make their analysis. This adds a tremendous weight to the things they have to say, instead of pulling ideas out of thin air, they can simply pull a quote from primary sources, detailing exactly what they felt was wrong about various government processes. Maybe one of the oddities about reading this work, is that one expects grand conspiracies or some dense, legal sounding fatal flaw, but many of them are in all honesty mundane. Something as simple as not having a job description for "Member of Parliament", or not being given any training on how to manage an office and hire staff, can all add up to a negative job experience, and hinder the work of an institution that is supposed to be very important to our country. As the errors continue to pile up, and we repeatedly ask "Why hasn't anyone fixed this?", we reach the climax of the novel, that all of these decisions to castrate the position of MP means the power is more consolidated to the office of Prime Minister. Whether intentional or not, they allow him or her to have almost dictatorial powers over their party at the expense of our democratic system.
Even though the strength of this work is their number of testimonials, I felt that the way they were presented took away from the reading experience. Names are presented, along with their party affiliation and riding, before a quote is pulled to prove a specific point, then a few lines later, another name is presented, along with their quote to add to said idea, and so on. After awhile the names becomes immaterial, it becomes hard to pull apart their separate identities, and they basically become one mass of "former MPs". Now the authors did highlight certain individuals and their histories, like Gary Merasty, a two term grand chief of the Indian peoples of central and northern Saskatchewan, who managed to lobby his people, already disillusioned with government, to get involved in voting and put him into power, eventually enacting policy in their favor. These individualized vignettes were really interesting, I wish this work had more of them, and it felt odd that in a work lamenting the loss of the individualized power of the MP, it would present their cases in such a collectivized manner. I would have much rather preferred each chapter to simply present an interview as is, creating a sense of familiarity with each MP and their problems, then allowing us to form our own judgement. The final analysis of the MPs interviews, by our authors, should have then made up the final chapter, instead of sprinkling them throughout the novel. I felt that by not having this sense of familiarity, it makes the former MPs pleas for change that much weaker, and the opinions of the authors, by not leading us to their conclusions on our own, end up just simply washing over the reader.
Overall, this work is relatively short, so I think it's worth a read for those interested in Canadian politics. But I don't think I'd recommend this work to other readers as their first introduction to political reading, as I think it fails to really spark that interest in learning more about our government and it's flaws, something which our authors and their subjects tried so hard to do.
Even though the strength of this work is their number of testimonials, I felt that the way they were presented took away from the reading experience. Names are presented, along with their party affiliation and riding, before a quote is pulled to prove a specific point, then a few lines later, another name is presented, along with their quote to add to said idea, and so on. After awhile the names becomes immaterial, it becomes hard to pull apart their separate identities, and they basically become one mass of "former MPs". Now the authors did highlight certain individuals and their histories, like Gary Merasty, a two term grand chief of the Indian peoples of central and northern Saskatchewan, who managed to lobby his people, already disillusioned with government, to get involved in voting and put him into power, eventually enacting policy in their favor. These individualized vignettes were really interesting, I wish this work had more of them, and it felt odd that in a work lamenting the loss of the individualized power of the MP, it would present their cases in such a collectivized manner. I would have much rather preferred each chapter to simply present an interview as is, creating a sense of familiarity with each MP and their problems, then allowing us to form our own judgement. The final analysis of the MPs interviews, by our authors, should have then made up the final chapter, instead of sprinkling them throughout the novel. I felt that by not having this sense of familiarity, it makes the former MPs pleas for change that much weaker, and the opinions of the authors, by not leading us to their conclusions on our own, end up just simply washing over the reader.
Overall, this work is relatively short, so I think it's worth a read for those interested in Canadian politics. But I don't think I'd recommend this work to other readers as their first introduction to political reading, as I think it fails to really spark that interest in learning more about our government and it's flaws, something which our authors and their subjects tried so hard to do.
April 21, 2014
Tragedy in the Commons: Former Members of Parliment Speak Out About Canada's Failing Democracy by Alison Loat & Michael MacMillian This work I won from a giveaway that was posted on Goodreads. This book was not what I had expected, after reading it I felt as if the Tragedy in the Commons should have been the subtitle. MP's speak out would have been a more suitable title as the book was literally quote after quote from former MP's about Canadians failing political system. While the material in the book was great and very interesting I felt that the delivery could have been greatly approved by widening the scope from being strictly quotes of MP's to using various other sources. With the limited scope they use I feel the material would have been better suited as a research paper then in a book. One thing that was hard to ignore while reading this text, all the complaints of the system and the diminishing prominence of MP's in the government was fielded by MP's themselves which for me created an obvious bias in this work. I think the arguments presented in this book needed more points of view then just MP's to make more solid arguments as each point was developed through a bunch of MP quotes and then concluding that democracy must be failing because MP's said so... I gave a rating of 3 stars based on my enjoyment of the information presented but it could have had a better delivery. One last thing worth noting was some of the facts presented had no back up information or numbers, they state during the book that voting numbers have been declining, as away to show that Canadians are losing interest in politics, but present no percentages or numbers to accurately show the degree of declining interest.
December 7, 2014
Both inspiring and sad at the same time. What is particularly striking is how many former MPs spoke openly about their experience in the job. There is a lot of work to be done and we all need to participate if we don't want to continue to live the tragedy of the commons.
May 1, 2014
this book definitely misses the mark but because it speaks about an important issue, I couldn't give it a 1.
December 21, 2019
The Canadian Federal Election is coming up in a few weeks, so I thought it would be a good idea to cover the one Political Science book that I have read.
I want to read more books about politics, but they’re usually on the back of my mind so I don’t often look for them when I go book shopping.
This one however was very insightful, and got me interested in the genre.
This really isn’t a book about one party’s politics, or a certain political viewpoint. This was more about how the Canadian political system works as a whole, and the different aspects of the system.
It’s written and includes stories about former Members of Parliament. It’s that first hand account that really drive the point home in my opinion.
It’s one thing to write about something you never really experienced. You can get all the facts, get the first hand accounts, but there is nothing quite like experiencing it for yourself.
I read this book while I was taking a Political Science class and it was a nice education in the field.
I had a basic understanding of how Canada’s democratic system worked, but I didn’t really understand the intricate workings of it until I read this book.
I wouldn’t call myself an expert in any shape or form, but this sort of made me realize how important it is to have an understanding of your country’s government.
I don’t know what country you are reading this in, but one of the best parts of a democracy is that you get a voice. Whether you like this person or that person, this ideal or that, this party or the other, you have a chance to vote.
It’s important to vote. I mean it is literally the fundamental component of the democratic system.
It’s only been a handful of elections, but I have voted in every single election I have had the chance to vote in because I have the right.
Many people across the world don’t have that chance, and so I take advantage of the opportunity when I can.
I won’t share my political views, that’s not the point of the post. The point is to understand how your government works. People will argue that they don’t vote for a handful of reasons, but I promise you they are all crap. There is no reason not to vote.
Overall Tragedy in the Commons is a good book. I was a bit worried because I thought it would be difficult to follow along, but it’s not.
It’s a really easy read, and any confusing concepts are explained in detail that you don’t need to be a political nut to understand it all.
I don’t think a lot of my readers are in Canada, so this book won’t really do much for you.
What I am hoping for then, is that you get some sort of inspiration from it. You feel some inner need to vote, even if you think it’s pointless or a waste of time, do it anyways. Especially you young folk. Let your voice be heard.
I want to read more books about politics, but they’re usually on the back of my mind so I don’t often look for them when I go book shopping.
This one however was very insightful, and got me interested in the genre.
This really isn’t a book about one party’s politics, or a certain political viewpoint. This was more about how the Canadian political system works as a whole, and the different aspects of the system.
It’s written and includes stories about former Members of Parliament. It’s that first hand account that really drive the point home in my opinion.
It’s one thing to write about something you never really experienced. You can get all the facts, get the first hand accounts, but there is nothing quite like experiencing it for yourself.
I read this book while I was taking a Political Science class and it was a nice education in the field.
I had a basic understanding of how Canada’s democratic system worked, but I didn’t really understand the intricate workings of it until I read this book.
I wouldn’t call myself an expert in any shape or form, but this sort of made me realize how important it is to have an understanding of your country’s government.
I don’t know what country you are reading this in, but one of the best parts of a democracy is that you get a voice. Whether you like this person or that person, this ideal or that, this party or the other, you have a chance to vote.
It’s important to vote. I mean it is literally the fundamental component of the democratic system.
It’s only been a handful of elections, but I have voted in every single election I have had the chance to vote in because I have the right.
Many people across the world don’t have that chance, and so I take advantage of the opportunity when I can.
I won’t share my political views, that’s not the point of the post. The point is to understand how your government works. People will argue that they don’t vote for a handful of reasons, but I promise you they are all crap. There is no reason not to vote.
Overall Tragedy in the Commons is a good book. I was a bit worried because I thought it would be difficult to follow along, but it’s not.
It’s a really easy read, and any confusing concepts are explained in detail that you don’t need to be a political nut to understand it all.
I don’t think a lot of my readers are in Canada, so this book won’t really do much for you.
What I am hoping for then, is that you get some sort of inspiration from it. You feel some inner need to vote, even if you think it’s pointless or a waste of time, do it anyways. Especially you young folk. Let your voice be heard.
November 16, 2024
It's been a while since I've read a book with such a damn good premise. Look, this isn't an exciting book, nor does it really rise to my "everyone must read" threshold of a five-star because of its pretty narrow focus... but its core idea is just so bloody important that it deserves five-stars in my view.
The premise of the book is simple: we should have 'exit interviews' with politicians when they leave their roles as members of parliament (MPs). The authors conducted eighty such interviews across several cohorts of MPs, asking about a wide range of topics, from how they wish they were supported going into their first days, to the structural changes that could be made to our political system to make it better.
The authors do a lovely job of letting the eighty MPs speak for themselves, at times giving them enough room to descend into contradiction. At times their views are insightful and helpful, with useful recommendations (a lot of the transitional and geographical recommendations would fall into this, for instance: how we can better support new MPs and MPs who live far from Ottawa).
They also draw out some really interesting insights, even if less actionable. One, for instance, is the absolutely unanimous narrative by which MPs must genuflect to a shared story of "never having any desire to go into politics" as their origin story. They suggest we need to challenge the ubiquity of this narrative, both for honesty and to allow better development of political and public service talent... though it's a little hard to know how to do this in practice.
At other times, though, the MPs are revealed for their deeply hypocritical perspectives. The best self-incrimination comes from the degree to which every MP decries partisanship, showmanship during question period, and a wide variety of cheap political shots... and then practices all of those things themselves. Every MP is happy to complain about the partisan, political hacks across the aisle, but somehow rewrites the narrative of their own exact same behaviour as either absent or somehow justified.
This isn't necessarily reading that will appeal to all, and I'm not sure the lessons in this book are essential to the level of "everyone must read this." But, good heavens, it's just a delight to read a book that starts from such a wonderfully important and useful and helpful question. Good on these authors, and we should be doing exit interviews in so many other places.
The premise of the book is simple: we should have 'exit interviews' with politicians when they leave their roles as members of parliament (MPs). The authors conducted eighty such interviews across several cohorts of MPs, asking about a wide range of topics, from how they wish they were supported going into their first days, to the structural changes that could be made to our political system to make it better.
The authors do a lovely job of letting the eighty MPs speak for themselves, at times giving them enough room to descend into contradiction. At times their views are insightful and helpful, with useful recommendations (a lot of the transitional and geographical recommendations would fall into this, for instance: how we can better support new MPs and MPs who live far from Ottawa).
They also draw out some really interesting insights, even if less actionable. One, for instance, is the absolutely unanimous narrative by which MPs must genuflect to a shared story of "never having any desire to go into politics" as their origin story. They suggest we need to challenge the ubiquity of this narrative, both for honesty and to allow better development of political and public service talent... though it's a little hard to know how to do this in practice.
At other times, though, the MPs are revealed for their deeply hypocritical perspectives. The best self-incrimination comes from the degree to which every MP decries partisanship, showmanship during question period, and a wide variety of cheap political shots... and then practices all of those things themselves. Every MP is happy to complain about the partisan, political hacks across the aisle, but somehow rewrites the narrative of their own exact same behaviour as either absent or somehow justified.
This isn't necessarily reading that will appeal to all, and I'm not sure the lessons in this book are essential to the level of "everyone must read this." But, good heavens, it's just a delight to read a book that starts from such a wonderfully important and useful and helpful question. Good on these authors, and we should be doing exit interviews in so many other places.
October 14, 2019
What do our MPs do once elected to Ottawa? What motivates them to enter politics? Does the experience of serving in the House of Commons live up to their expectations? Seven years ago, the authors set out to answer these and other questions. The interviewed 80 former MPs, drawn from all parties and all regions. Some had served as minister. One, Paul Martin, served as Prime Minister. Others only sat in opposition. In short, the various types of parliamentary career are well represented.
The portrait that emerges is bleak. From the first steps—often reluctantly accepting the party’s nomination, then winning the prize only to feeling lost upon arrival in a Ottawa, where little support or training is provided—the vast majority of those interviewed expressed disappointment With their experience. The “government by the centre”—the PMO, the House Leader and Whip’s offices, the party line, time wasted in the Green Chamber, and interesting committee work that too often does not lead to legislative change—all contributed to the former MPs’ frustration.
The book also touches on the role played by political parties, and the eternal question of allegiance. Does an MP act on his own judgment and values, or vote according to the wishes of his or her constituents? Given the negative consequences of breaking with the party line, this question is never an easy one to answer.
As someone who spent 24 years in a provincial legislature, I found the conclusions more negative than my own experience. Yes, there are many long days in politics, where one encounters boredom, inertia, and frustration. But there are other days when a ribbon is cut at a new school, or a new social service opens due to government funding, when you can say, “ this is why I am in politics!” And committee work made not yield immediate results, but often ideas surface that find there way into policies or legislation. And finally, the authors question the role played by MPs and their offices in helping citizens whose files have gone astray in the bureaucracy. They do not feel this is an appropriate role for MPs. I disagree. This allows members to help their constituents and to reveal the gap between fine policy intentions and service delivery by government.
The portrait that emerges is bleak. From the first steps—often reluctantly accepting the party’s nomination, then winning the prize only to feeling lost upon arrival in a Ottawa, where little support or training is provided—the vast majority of those interviewed expressed disappointment With their experience. The “government by the centre”—the PMO, the House Leader and Whip’s offices, the party line, time wasted in the Green Chamber, and interesting committee work that too often does not lead to legislative change—all contributed to the former MPs’ frustration.
The book also touches on the role played by political parties, and the eternal question of allegiance. Does an MP act on his own judgment and values, or vote according to the wishes of his or her constituents? Given the negative consequences of breaking with the party line, this question is never an easy one to answer.
As someone who spent 24 years in a provincial legislature, I found the conclusions more negative than my own experience. Yes, there are many long days in politics, where one encounters boredom, inertia, and frustration. But there are other days when a ribbon is cut at a new school, or a new social service opens due to government funding, when you can say, “ this is why I am in politics!” And committee work made not yield immediate results, but often ideas surface that find there way into policies or legislation. And finally, the authors question the role played by MPs and their offices in helping citizens whose files have gone astray in the bureaucracy. They do not feel this is an appropriate role for MPs. I disagree. This allows members to help their constituents and to reveal the gap between fine policy intentions and service delivery by government.
August 17, 2017
The authors, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan, have produced a good book about the current state of the Canadian parliamentary system. Based on interviews with former members of Parliament (exit interviews), the authors constructed a realistic portrait of the House of Commons and of the individuals that fill its ranks. I was disappointed that the Senate, which forms an integral part of our Parliament, was left outside of the discussion. However, in the light of the main argument of Loat and MacMillan, which is the consolidation of the legislative & executive powers under the Prime Minister Office (PMO) by diluting the functions of the MP's, the Senate seems somewhat remote from the issues discussed in this book. From what I understood, there is a new balance to be reached between the fundamental contribution of an MP in the House of Common, which is to hold accountable the executive branch (PMO, cabinet, privy council), and the extent of the power of the Prime Minister as chief of the executive branch and as chief of his political party. In the end, the responsibility to attain that new balance falls into the hands of all MP's as well as Canadian citizens.
Read
January 6, 2020Did not finish (stopped just short of the 3rd chapter). It has been over 2 years since I picked this book up. I seem to recall liking the idea of the book, respecting the research done for the book, and respecting the value of the organization sponsoring the book (Samara). I have an education in political studies, and have had a 25+ year career effectively studying popular culture. My interest in the subject matter is substantial. I have kept this unfinished book on my shelf for a long length of time because I have felt that I 'should read it,' and thought that perhaps I would later find inspiration to pick it up again. However, it appears I have rejected the book on a sub-conscious level and it is time to move on... so it now goes in my done pile.
I can't exactly say why my interest in the written material lagged. Perhaps it didn't do a great job of connecting me to it. It felt like a research paper, with some insight included, but it also felt academic and exclusive.
I can't exactly say why my interest in the written material lagged. Perhaps it didn't do a great job of connecting me to it. It felt like a research paper, with some insight included, but it also felt academic and exclusive.
January 22, 2020
When an MP describes themselves as a trained seal told when to clap and we find that over 95% of the time the elected members of the party vote as a bloc, we can likely assume not much independent thought and careful consideration of pros and cons (and costs) of legislation is going on in parliament. Books like this and Irresponsible Government by Brent Rathgeber do a good job of communicating the problem but until we start advocating for change ourselves we could just do away with 200 or even 300 of the 338 seats we fund and give up the pretence that elected officials are representing us. If their focus and actions are geared to their main objective of personal gain by moving up the ranks in the party, let's just have the PMO and cabinet ministers so we can at least make the illusion of democracy cheaper.
If this book had even given some idea of how to go about banning omnibus bills, I would have given if 5 stars.
If this book had even given some idea of how to go about banning omnibus bills, I would have given if 5 stars.
May 31, 2019
Samara leaders Alison Loat and Michael McMillan write a tight, anecdotally-based analysis for why Canada's federal government is malfunctioning. Samara conducted interviews with a number of former MP's who claim a strong distaste for the political climate due to leader-centric parties, party domination over MP duties, lack of guidance and ambiguous MP job descriptions. The chapters are organized according to these themes, and why the media and events such as Question Period erode the reputation of politicians and the desire for citizens to uptake political service. The authors speckle the text with insightful analysis, and the final chapter is prescriptive on how to fix the issues. One shortcoming is that some names recur too often, suggesting a lack of breadth of participants while preparing to write this work. This is a minor quibble to an ultimately satisfying and insightful book.
January 10, 2021
For those wondering why a democratic deficit exists within Canada's parliamentary democracy, Loat and MacMillan analyze the concern with a series of interviews with former Members of Parliament. The book, interesting and insightful in nature, does not shy away from discussing the highs and lows MPs face once in and out of office - from their party leaders, their caucus and understandably, the Canadian electorate. As MPs struggle to make their voices heard in Ottawa on behalf of their constituents, the authors propose some reasonable policy solutions to better participatory process to that effect.
May 20, 2017
This is a great book for Canadian parliamentary wonks. The first hand accounts of the tradeoffs MPs make in their time in the house highlight some key failings of what Canadians tend to think of as our ideal system of government. The book highlights some clear issues as well as suggestions to improve our federal government which has the benefit of making this book more than something to make us worried about our democracy - it helps paint a potential path forward.
I look forward to Allison's forthcoming follow up, and following Samara's work going forward.
I look forward to Allison's forthcoming follow up, and following Samara's work going forward.
June 30, 2020
A really engaging and readable look at why Canadian federal politics function the way they do. It poses some good questions about the future of our democracy and solutions that might help find a new answer to the question of why Canadians should care about the political process and feel their vote matters if even MPs feel powerless.
April 30, 2019
I used to watch political news all the time, until I stopped after getting rid of cable. This was my way back to reading some familiar and not-so familiar names in Canadian federal politics. The reading was a bit dry, but I was left wanting to read more.
February 21, 2021
A worthwhile read that provides interesting insights to life on Parliament Hill. Many of the anecdotes were captivating and instructive. The recommendations to improve the culture on Parliament Hill were varied but seemed to lack depth.
January 14, 2018
Livre très intéressant se basant sur une étude fouillée et des témoignages des acteurs principaux de notre système politique.
Un livre illustrant de nombreuses lacunes de notre système politique.
Un livre illustrant de nombreuses lacunes de notre système politique.
August 30, 2018
I didn't understand all the warts of my democracy until I read this book. I'm a better citizen for it.
May 15, 2020
Wow! Amazing book, well written and easy to follow format. If you care about Canadian politics you need to read this book.
October 25, 2020
I learned a lot about the inner workings of the Canadian politics system, which was really interesting. It can't be fixed. Rip
July 21, 2023
Finally a reasonably objective analysis of the state of politics in Canada. A good read for anyone who works in the field .
Read
July 30, 2015http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2014/0...
Review by Amira Elghawaby
I'm not sure what's worse for democracy -- the truth, or fictional representations of the political world.
On the one hand, we've got shows like "House of Cards" that make politics look like the playground of the most manipulative, selfish and conniving people in our society, and on the other hand, we have constant real life scandals swirling around our elected (and non-elected) representatives.
Somewhere in the midst of all this, there are those who believe we can't give up on our democratic institutions.
Wishful thinking?
One can't help but admire the efforts of Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan of the Samara Organization in putting out Tragedy in the Commons, which is an important book that aims to salvage a system that seems destined to remain as is: broken.
Indeed, their organization has already contributed a lot to educating Canadians about our democracy.
Among its various initiatives, the organization publishes "Democracy Reports" to capture the disconnect between the priorities of Canadians and what's actually discussed in Parliament; provides resources for educators and community activists right off its website on how to teach about citizen engagement; and co-sponsors an annual prize for political writing, along with seminars on public affairs reporting.
And yet, it must be said, the book is a real downer.
If the authors of this book intended to inspire hope in our political future, they've failed miserably. However, if the authors are simply hoping to alert us to the sorry state of our democracy, then kudos to them.
Indeed, they say the whole project started out as an attempt to figure out just why Canadians are so disengaged from politics.
Read more here: http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2014/0...
Review by Amira Elghawaby
I'm not sure what's worse for democracy -- the truth, or fictional representations of the political world.
On the one hand, we've got shows like "House of Cards" that make politics look like the playground of the most manipulative, selfish and conniving people in our society, and on the other hand, we have constant real life scandals swirling around our elected (and non-elected) representatives.
Somewhere in the midst of all this, there are those who believe we can't give up on our democratic institutions.
Wishful thinking?
One can't help but admire the efforts of Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan of the Samara Organization in putting out Tragedy in the Commons, which is an important book that aims to salvage a system that seems destined to remain as is: broken.
Indeed, their organization has already contributed a lot to educating Canadians about our democracy.
Among its various initiatives, the organization publishes "Democracy Reports" to capture the disconnect between the priorities of Canadians and what's actually discussed in Parliament; provides resources for educators and community activists right off its website on how to teach about citizen engagement; and co-sponsors an annual prize for political writing, along with seminars on public affairs reporting.
And yet, it must be said, the book is a real downer.
If the authors of this book intended to inspire hope in our political future, they've failed miserably. However, if the authors are simply hoping to alert us to the sorry state of our democracy, then kudos to them.
Indeed, they say the whole project started out as an attempt to figure out just why Canadians are so disengaged from politics.
Read more here: http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2014/0...
June 16, 2014
When this book arrived in the mail as a giveaway for review, my first thought was "Why did I put my name in for this? I probably won't understand it." I was wrong. Tragedy in the Commons: Former Members of Parliament Speak Out About Canada's Failing Democracy is readable and easy to follow. It is a compelling nonfiction book.
The authors interviewed numerous former Members of Parliament. They focused on why these people ran for office, their attitude toward being politicians, how they won, what happened when they arrived in Parliament, their frustrations with the job, and what they think should be changed. The writers ended with an examination of these interview results, a discussion of the MPs ideas for improvement, and suggestions of their own on how our political system could be more effective.
I have to say that the facts uncovered in these interviews are both shocking and disappointing. One of the most troublesome was that newly elected Members of Parliament are unclear as to their duties and given little to no support or training for the job. A major problem with our political system is the pressure MPs receive to vote with their party against their own better judgment and the desires of their constituents. Quite often the "public good is sacrificed on the altar of short-term political gain". The Members want to ensure party support in order to receive peach assignments and, hopefully, become a member of the Senate when they retire. The suggestions offered by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan are achievable, sensible, and require courage and unity from MPs who truly wish to improve the system of government and serve the people's best interests.
I strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in politics or of voting age. I dearly hope that this book is the impetus for real change and progress in creating a true democracy for Canada.
The authors interviewed numerous former Members of Parliament. They focused on why these people ran for office, their attitude toward being politicians, how they won, what happened when they arrived in Parliament, their frustrations with the job, and what they think should be changed. The writers ended with an examination of these interview results, a discussion of the MPs ideas for improvement, and suggestions of their own on how our political system could be more effective.
I have to say that the facts uncovered in these interviews are both shocking and disappointing. One of the most troublesome was that newly elected Members of Parliament are unclear as to their duties and given little to no support or training for the job. A major problem with our political system is the pressure MPs receive to vote with their party against their own better judgment and the desires of their constituents. Quite often the "public good is sacrificed on the altar of short-term political gain". The Members want to ensure party support in order to receive peach assignments and, hopefully, become a member of the Senate when they retire. The suggestions offered by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan are achievable, sensible, and require courage and unity from MPs who truly wish to improve the system of government and serve the people's best interests.
I strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in politics or of voting age. I dearly hope that this book is the impetus for real change and progress in creating a true democracy for Canada.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews