As political jockeying begins, don’t forget job No. 1

The goal, for all parties in a democracy, is to make the best legislation and bring in the strongest policy forward for voters and citizens.

And every party has a role to play in that effort.

Governments set policy and bring forward legislation. Official oppositions challenge that process with the goal of identifying weaknesses or flaws in proposed laws, bringing forward the positions of groups affected by proposed legislative change, and generally are supposed to bring a critical lens to the process in an effort to improve the final result.

Third parties bring forward still further viewpoints and analysis, often from a different political bent, but valuable insight and viewpoints nonetheless.

And the simple fact is that strong oppositions make better legislation and bring more carefully thought-out policy — precisely because those laws and policies have to be defended and justified by the government proposing them.

Government with massive majorities quite simple begin to believe in their own importance: they belittle their opponents, deride their ideas and suggestions for improvement, and often ride headlong into avoidable mistakes. No one scores an own-goal quite like a self-righteous majority government convinced of its electoral invincibility.

That isn’t how it’s supposed to be.

Despite the combative theatrics of things like Question Period, the goal for everyone, government and opposition alike, isn’t supposed to be endless political warfare and one-sided decision-making — it’s supposed to be good governance.

It’s sometimes hard to see, especially as politics in many countries — even formerly highly-functional democracies that have experienced decades of quiet, behind-the-scenes bipartisan cooperation — has devolved into opposition for mere opposition’s sake.

Now, the process seems to be that if your opponent suggests a legislative direction, first and foremost, you reject it out of hand — even if it’s a good or timely idea. In its own way, it’s politics above patriotism.

And that brings us to the sudden and as-yet-not-fully-explained departure of Manitoba Progressive Conservative Leader Obby Khan late Monday.

“I am not leaving because I lost the confidence of caucus,” he said. “I have spent my life fighting for things I believe in. I am making this decision because I will not allow a fight for a title to take precedence over my responsibility to Manitobans and compromise my personal integrity,” he said. “Leadership requires listening, but it also requires knowing when internal conflict has begun to overshadow the work people have elected us to do. I have heard criticism of some of the choices I made as leader, including whom I entrusted with responsibilities in various roles.”

It’s odd for a party leader to resign the leadership without allowing time for an orderly transfer of power to his or her replacement, and it’s odder still for a departing party leader to simultaneously leave the party to sit as an independent.

Politics is messy, and there are no doubt machinations within the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party that aren’t apparent yet — like the possibility of potential new leadership candidates actively working behind the scenes to engineer Khan’s ouster.

There are also no doubt machinations within the NDP government of Premier Wab Kinew right now — including internal debate over whether a strategic quickly-called election against a leaderless opponent could cement full control for another NDP term. (Look at what is happening in B.C., where an election call by the governing NDP came two years early, with the official opposition Conservatives now being forced to run with an interim leader after their leader quit.)

But that’s all politics, not governance.

Let’s hope that, in whatever unfolds next for both parties, working for the good of the people of Manitoba doesn’t get left by the political wayside. It should be people first, and politics a distant also-ran.