MPs, especially government backbenchers, are on the whole an ineffectual, passive, and deferential lot. Those who exhibit some independence, such as former Conservatives Garth Turner and Bill Casey, are expelled from their party’s caucus or are denied their party’s nomination by their party leader. It was not always so. Parties, and especially party leaders, have become more powerful over time while MPs, more than in the past, appear as political dwarfs.

Re-empowering MPs will not necessarily happen with better-resourced parliamentary committees. That would matter if committees operated more collegially, but the mutual respect that members once showed one another has deteriorated and the prime minister’s office increasingly dictates what Conservative committee members say, do, or even whether they show up at all. The Clerk of the House believes that minority government contributes to MPs’ rowdy behaviour. It is difficult to imagine however, that majority government would arrest the proliferation of leaders’ fiats or reverse MPs’ shrivelled status.

An obstacle to MPs flexing their muscles is the 1974 law that requires parties to register in order to receive benefits under the income tax regime and other public subsidies. The law also, for the first time, permitted party names to appear next to those of candidates on ballots. So that Elections Canada would not have to wade into the potentially messy issue of which candidate could append a party label to her name on the ballot, the law vested that power with the party leaders. This made candidates and MPs beholden to their leader rather than vice-versa. Party labels on ballots have taken on great significance. Candidates have decreased in stature because, since 1974, voters have been able to enter the polling booth without knowing the name of the candidate they will vote for; the party label may signal it to them.

Party leaders can undo their MPs, but they cannot easily do them in. Leadership selection was once the prerogative of a party’s caucus but since 1919 for the Liberals and 1927 for the Conservatives it has been determined by party conventions. Until the late 1960s, MPs and other ex officio delegates dominated these conventions, which were largely managed insiders’ affairs. By the 1960s and with free television coverage in mind, the parties expanded leadership conventions with larger numbers of regular party members. This meant the leader became increasingly detached from his caucus; they did not choose him, as was clear in the case of Stéphane Dion, nor did he need them to remain leader, as became apparent in Jean Chrétien’s and Pierre Trudeau’s latter years. They hung on despite their caucuses’ unhappiness with them.

What might put more power in the hands of MPs? First, drop the party labels from ballots. This would add to MPs’ credibility and freedom as political actors. Second, let party caucuses determine once again their leader. Leaders would have to court and listen to their MPs rather than vice-versa. Having popularly elected MPs select their leader is arguably more democratic, accountable, and transparent than having “instant” party members elect delegate slates at manipulated constituency meetings. Aspiring leaders’ organizations often purchase “instant” members’ memberships. Such members often vanish, their membership and participation in the life of the party limited to casting a single ballot for a convention delegate or for the leader himself.

With the parties moving to American-style primaries of one-member, one-vote leadership-selection systems, MPs and party caucuses lose even more. Outsiders like Brian Mulroney and Belinda Stronach and neophytes MPs like Michael Ignatieff can compete for their party’s leadership by building leadership organizational networks at some distance from the MPs they wished to lead.

Here is another idea to make MPs more relevant: enforce the once long-standing rule that prohibits reading speeches. Parliament is a place for talking, not for reading. Leave that to third graders. Unless a matter of government policy requires technically precise articulation, let genuine debate unfold and true debaters shine. Wit, eloquence, and perspicuity – sadly in short supply in parliament these days – make for engaging debate. There are good reasons why so many Canadians tune out parliament. Scripted talking points in Question Period, ministerial responses with non-sequiturs, and gratuitous ad hominem insults, insult spectators.

Eliminating TV broadcasts of parliament would curtail some clownishness. Parliamentary shenanigans certainly predate TV, but broadcasting them lessens respect for the institution. Foreigners and schoolchildren in the parliamentary visitors’ gallery wince at the largely shameful spectacle that Question Period has become. MPs who repeatedly jump up to applaud an inane comment or the self-righteous buffoonery of a colleague, are no salutary role model for students. Youthful idealism regarding democratic institutions needs nourishment, not juvenile theatrics.

Reforms, of course, have unintended consequences. That was the case with the 1974 law. MPs did not realize it would diminish them. Changes bring risk but without them the decline of parliament and MPs will likely continue. Self-respecting MPs should address their demise, not preside over it.