"挖角"的多数党政府是否民主？（观点，中英对照）

随着五名国会议员相继跳党，自由党借此组建多数政府，围绕“议员换党”的争论迅速升温。原本会被视为议会运作常规操作的行为，如今在许多人眼中，已上升为加国民主系统是否正当运作的高度。

The debate over party-switching has gained traction after the Liberals formed a majority government with the help of five MPs crossing the floor. What might once have been seen as routine parliamentary maneuvering has now become, for many, a test of democratic legitimacy.

一篇由辛峰撰写、在中文社交媒体广泛传播的评论，将这种情绪体现得淋漓尽致。题为《加拿大的“挖角总理”》一文，认为总理马克·卡尼的多数党并非通过选票而赢得，而是依靠幕后拉拢与政治操纵。文中将这一过程描绘为对选民意志的背离，暗示那些跳党的议员是在利益驱动下进行政治交易。然而，这些指控更多停留在推断与怀疑之上，缺乏具体而可核实的证据支撑。

A widely circulated Chinese-language commentary by Xin Feng captures this sentiment vividly. Titled “Canada’s Poaching Prime Minister,” the article argues that Prime Minister Mark Carney secured his majority not through the ballot box, but through backroom inducements and political opportunism. It frames the episode as a betrayal of voters’ will, portraying those who switched parties as engaging in political deal-making driven by incentives. However, these allegations are asserted more than substantiated, with little concrete evidence offered to support them.

但这种观点背后的不满情绪是真实存在的。在一个政党标签对选民具有重要意义的选举环境中，选民投票支持的，往往是代表特定政治理念与政策方向的候选人。因此，当一名议员放弃原有的政党身份时，其选区选民会感到被误导甚至被背离。信任是至关重要的，一旦失去，往往无法重获。

The frustration behind this argument is real. In a political culture where party affiliation carries significant weight, voters do not choose in a vacuum. They elect candidates as representatives of a broader platform and identity. When an MP abandons that affiliation, it is understandable that constituents may feel misled. Trust, once broken, is not easily restored.

可是，如果从这种不满情绪出发，进一步认定由此产生的政府是“非民主”的，就误解了加拿大制度的运作方式。在加拿大，选民并不是直接选举政府，而是选举国会议员。政府的组成与延续，取决于哪个政党或政党之组合能够在下议院中获得多数支持，也就是获得议会的信心。从这个角度出发，通过议会支持的结构重组，包括由议员跳党而形成的多数政府，并非制度的偏离，而正是议会民主运作的一种体现。

But to move from this frustration to the claim that the resulting government is somehow “undemocratic” is to misunderstand how Canada’s system is designed to work. In Canada, voters do not elect governments directly. They elect Members of Parliament. Governments are formed—and can evolve—based on which party or grouping can command the confidence of the House of Commons. From this perspective, a majority achieved through shifting parliamentary support, including floor-crossing, is not an aberration but a feature of parliamentary democracy.

这一点之所以重要，是因为加拿大的制度在根本上不同于美国的总统制。在美国，选民直接选出总统，选举结果在任期内基本是固定的。而在加拿大，政府则取决于民选议员持续的支持。这种支持并非一成不变。因此随之而来的便是政府格局的调整：少数政府可能被击败，也可能发展为多数政府。正是因为这一制度赋予民选代表在任期内持续判断与决策的空间，而不仅仅将选举当日的一次选择视为最终结果，它才呈现出一定的灵活性与变化性。

This distinction matters because Canada’s system is fundamentally different from the U.S. presidential model. In the United States, voters directly choose a president, and the outcome is fixed for the term. In Canada, by contrast, the government depends on the ongoing support of elected MPs. That support can change, and with it, the composition of government. A minority government can be defeated or evolve into a majority. The system allows for this flexibility because it entrusts representatives with judgment over time, not just on election day.

虽然缺乏明确证据，但公众对跳党动机产生疑问或许难以避免。要避免这种质疑，并增强民主问责机制，一种可行的改革思路是，要求跳党的议员通过补选重新获得选民授权。

In the absence of clear evidence, questions about motivation are perhaps inevitable. To address such skepticism and strengthen democratic accountability, one possible reform would be to require MPs who switch parties to seek a renewed mandate through a by-election.

但这场争论忽视了更广泛的政治背景。近期民调显示，马克·卡尼及其领导的自由党政府仍然拥有稳固的公众支持，支持率维持在40%中段左右。虽然在加拿大，公众舆论并不直接决定谁来执政，但它有助于解释为何反对党议员愿意在议会中支持现任政府。在议会制中，这种支持，即“信任”，才是维系政府的根本。由此来看，自由党获得多数地位，不仅是政治运作的结果，而是在一定程度上反映了议会信心度与加国主流民意之间的契合。

But what this debate also overlooks is the broader political context. Recent polling suggests that Mark Carney and the Liberal government continue to enjoy solid public support, with approval ratings in the mid-40s. While public opinion does not determine who governs in Canada, it helps explain why MPs may be willing to support the government in the House. In a parliamentary system, that support—confidence—is what ultimately sustains a government. Seen in this light, the Liberals’ majority is not only a product of political maneuvering, but also of a broader alignment between parliamentary support and prevailing public sentiment.