Tragedy in the Commons is a 2014 book written by the co-founders of Samara Canada, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan .[1] The book puts forth several arguments about a crisis facing Canadian politics and the institution of Parliament as a whole. It is backed by primary research conducted by Samara including "exit interviews" with 80 former Members of Parliament.
See main article: Tragedy of the commons.
Tragedy in the Commons is a variation of Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons". In Hardin's argument, the commons as a whole suffers when individuals (in Hardin's case, farmers) behave selfishly and contrary to the good of the commons. As well, each person is demotivated from changing their ways, since they will be putting themselves at an economic disadvantage unless the other individuals agree to live by the same rules.
Loat and MacMillan apply this as a metaphor to a "tragedy of the Commons", referring to the House of Commons.
The authors interviewed 80 former Members of Parliament from all major political parties, including the Liberal Party of Canada, Conservative Party of Canada, New Democratic Party of Canada, Bloc Quebecois, and the former Canadian Alliance, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and Reform Party of Canada.
Those MPs came from a variety of professional backgrounds, geographic representation, and parliamentary experience. They included members who served in Opposition and cabinet, as party leaders and as backbench MPs.
MPs interviewed included Paul Martin, David Anderson, Susan Barnes, Ed Broadbent, Claudette Bradshaw, Joseph Comuzzi, Guy Cote, Roy Cullen, Roger Gallaway, John Godfrey, Bill Graham, Keith Martin, Inky Mark, Jay Hill, Monte Solberg, Chuck Strahl, and Andrew Telegdi.[2]
Loat and MacMillan argue that there are several unique yet related "tragedies" in the way the Canadian House of Commons currently operates. They are:
Loat and MacMillan note that the resulting tragedy is that Canadians stop paying attention to politics, refusing to engage their elected representatives and becoming increasingly sceptical about an MP's purpose, cost, or mandate.