The recent Quebec provincial election provides more evidence of Quebec leading democracy in Canada, as incumbent Jean Charest's Quebec Liberal Party (50 seats) were defeated by Pauline Marois’ Parti Québécois (54 seats), and new party, Coalition Avenir Québec and its leader François Legault won 19 seats. The election demonstrates that the Quebec election process overall allows for change in governments and for new parties to compete.
In contrast, Alberta which arguably is the least democratic province in Canada, has had the same party in power for 42 years. Although the most recent Alberta election was tight, it was between two parties which mirror each other in many senses, with the PC Party representing the old conservative guard and the Wildrose representing the new conservative guard. Both these parties received the lions share of corporate election funding. Big Money Alberta Politics In Quebec, corporations and labor unions are disallowed from making contributions to candidates and parties.
Recently, the FDA published electoral finance audit results for all ten Canadian provinces with Quebec receiving the maximum outstanding score of 100 percent, and Alberta receiving a failing and last place score of 47.7 percent.
The irony about Quebec is that corruption is readily reported in corporate media, so most Canadians think that Quebec is a corrupt and unfair province. Most recently, the attempted assassination of Pauline Marois during her acceptance speech may only add to that image. Based on its measurements, the FDA believe that Quebec has extremely sound democratic processes, similar to France, and as a result corruption is readily being uncovered. The processes are working. Whereas, in Alberta for example, corruption (at Quebec standards) has become part of the legal way of doing business. The democratic processes in Quebec and Alberta are polar opposites with the former favoring the Quebeckers as a whole, and the latter favoring special and minority interests.
FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report
Question for Readers:
How can significant democracy reform take place if there is no political interest by elected officials?