Although I agree with pretty much everything she says, she misses the bottom line for all these insane recall petitions…the NDP’s goal is to take over government. The can’t win it legitimately in an election so they’re trying to do it via disruption. They don’t want change in our system, they just want to rule.

Copied ⬇️

The current wave of recall petitions sweeping across Alberta — with 21 MLAs now facing recall efforts — represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both our democratic system and the purpose of recall legislation itself. While petitioners cite disagreements over Bill 2 and the use of the notwithstanding clause to end the teachers' strike, they're actually attacking the very foundation of our Westminster parliamentary system while pretending the problem lies with individual MLAs.

Let's be clear: the Recall Act was designed to address corruption, unethical behavior, and serious misconduct — not policy disagreements. When former Premier Jason Kenney introduced this legislation, it was meant to hold politicians accountable for breaches of trust and genuine failures to represent constituents. It was never intended as a tool to relitigate election results or punish MLAs for voting with their party on government bills.

Welcome to Westminster Democracy

The complaints that MLAs "voted along party lines" on Bill 2 reveal a stunning ignorance of how our system actually works. In the Westminster model, party discipline isn't a bug — it's a feature.

When voters elect a government, they're choosing a party platform and giving that party a mandate to implement its agenda. MLAs who campaign under a party banner are expected to support that party's legislation, particularly on matters of confidence and key government initiatives.

This isn't betrayal; it's literally how responsible government functions. The premier and cabinet require the confidence of the legislature to govern. That confidence is maintained through party cohesion. An MLA who regularly votes against their own government's bills would be undermining the very mandate voters gave that government.

The petitioners' real complaint isn't with individual MLAs — it's with the Westminster system itself. They want representatives who can freely vote against their party whenever local sentiment differs from provincial policy. But that's not the system we have, and weaponizing recall legislation won't change that fundamental reality.

The Wrong Tool for the Wrong Problem

Many of the petitioners cite the government's use of the notwithstanding clause to end the teachers' strike as their primary grievance. This is a policy disagreement, pure and simple. Whether you support or oppose Bill 2, whether you think the notwithstanding clause was justified or not, these are matters to be decided at election time, not through recall petitions.

Using recall petitions to attack policy decisions transforms what should be a safeguard against corruption into a tool for endless political warfare. It turns every controversial vote into a potential recall campaign, creating perpetual instability, and making governance impossible.

Alternative Democratic Models: A Better Focus for Reform

If Albertans genuinely want representatives who can vote independently on every issue, they should focus their energy on advocating for systemic change rather than misusing recall legislation. Several democratic models could better accommodate their desires.

1. The Swiss Canton System

Switzerland's direct democracy allows citizens to challenge laws through referendums and propose constitutional amendments through popular initiatives. Cantons (similar to provinces) have significant autonomy, and representatives have more freedom to vote according to local wishes rather than party lines. Citizens can gather signatures to force a vote on any law passed by the legislature.

2. The American Congressional Model

The US system features weak party discipline, allowing representatives to regularly vote against their party without facing expulsion. Members of Congress represent their districts first and their parties second. This creates a system where individual representatives have enormous power to block or modify legislation based on local concerns.

3. The Mixed-Member Proportional System (Germany/New Zealand)

This hybrid model combines local constituency representatives with party list members, creating a balance between local representation and party cohesion. It allows for more diverse viewpoints in the legislature while maintaining stable government formation through coalitions.

4. The French Semi-Presidential System

France separates the head of state (president) from the head of government (prime minister), creating multiple power centers. This can allow for more independent action by legislators, as the executive's power is divided and checked by multiple institutions.

5. Consensus Democracy (Netherlands/Belgium)

These systems emphasize broad coalition governments and consensus-building across party lines. Rather than winner-take-all governance, multiple parties must cooperate, giving individual members more leverage to represent local interests within coalition negotiations.

The Path Forward: Education, Not Recall

Instead of wasting time and resources on recall petitions that Smith and her UCP caucus have argued aren't using the recall system appropriately, reform advocates should pursue productive change.

Launch a citizen-initiated referendum on democratic reform. Use the very tools of direct democracy to ask Albertans if they want to change our system of government.

Educate voters about how Westminster democracy actually works. Many people genuinely don't understand that party discipline is a core feature, not a betrayal of democracy.

Advocate for specific reforms within our current system, such as more free votes on matters not touching confidence, stronger committee systems, or enhanced consultation processes.

Focus on elections, where policy disagreements belong. If you oppose government decisions, organize to defeat them at the ballot box, not through recall petitions.

Conclusion: Stop Shooting the Messengers

The MLAs facing recall petitions are doing exactly what our system requires them to do: supporting their government's agenda as members of the governing party. They're not corrupt. They're not failing in their duties. They're operating within the Westminster system as it was designed to function.

With the requirement to collect signatures equal to 60% of votes cast in the last election within 90 days, these recall efforts face an uphill battle. But even if they succeed, they won't solve the underlying complaints. The next UCP MLA elected will also vote with their party on major legislation. The problem, if you see it as such, isn't the MLAs — it's the system.

If we want different outcomes, we need different structures. Let's stop abusing recall legislation as a weapon against policy disagreements and start having serious conversations about the kind of democracy we want. The energy being poured into these recall campaigns could be far better spent on genuine democratic reform.

Alberta has always been a province of democratic innovation — from the United Farmers to Social Credit to being among the first to embrace recall legislation. But innovation requires understanding what we're trying to fix. These recall petitions are using a hammer when what's needed is architectural redesign. It's time to put down the wrong tool and pick up the right blueprint for change.

Teri-Anne Bowyer is Constituency Manager for MLA Justin Wright in Cypress-Medicine Hat and has worked in Alberta politics since 2019. Views expressed are her own.

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/bowyer-recall-petitions-miss-the-mark-the-real-issue-is-our-westminster-system/69912