Who Elected Officials Actually Work ForAnd the Leadership Standard I Intend to Uphold

-
In public life, language matters more than we often admit.
I frequently hear elected officials refer to their party leader as “my boss.” This is rarely said with ill intent. It has become common shorthand within political culture. However, constitutionally and democratically, it is not accurate.
MLAs and MPs are elected by the people in their riding.
They are paid by taxpayers.
They are public servants.
Even party leaders ultimately work for the public. There is no legal or constitutional boss employee relationship between a party leader and an elected representative. Authority flows from voters upward, not from leadership downward.
So where does this language come from.
Party discipline.
Modern political parties exert significant influence through control over nominations, committee assignments, cabinet roles, and political advancement. Over time, this shapes incentives and behavior. Representatives may feel pressure to prioritize internal loyalty over independent judgment, even when constituent interests diverge from party strategy.
This creates a quiet but important tension within our system.
Representation versus loyalty.
Public service versus party management.
Democracy in theory versus power in practice.
This does not mean political parties are inherently wrong or malicious. Parties play an important role in organizing ideas, coordinating policy, and governing. Problems arise when party alignment begins to replace public accountability as the primary reference point for decision making.
Language reflects values.
When we casually describe party leaders as “the boss,” we normalize a hierarchy that shifts accountability away from voters. Over time, this erodes public trust and weakens the representative function of elected office.
For me, this is not an abstract concern.
As I consider the possibility of seeking elected leadership in the future, I want to be clear about the standard I intend to uphold.
My loyalty would not be to a party structure.
It would be to the people who elect me.
This does not mean rejecting collaboration, compromise, or collective governance. It means remembering where authority originates. It means listening outward before looking upward. It means being accountable to constituents first, even when doing so is uncomfortable.
Elected office is not employment by a party.
It is a responsibility entrusted by the public.
That distinction matters.
It is worth protecting.
It is the standard I would hold myself to.
Never Give Up

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Applied Pedagogy: How the AHRC Directive Revealed Systemic Refusal

-
A living case study by Shawn Raven This is the first public analysis applying my book’s framework to a real conflict with a Canadian institution. What I teach is not theory. It is lived law. It is applied pedagogy. It is survival turned into methodology. This is what it looks like in practice. --- The Context I submitted a human rights complaint. I cited my rights under the Charter, UNDRIP, TRC, and multiple sections of human rights legislation. I identified disability barriers, Indigenous rights, and systemic discrimination. Their response: A directive accusing my communication of being “rude,” “aggressive,” or “inappropriate.” The usual coded language used against autistic, Indigenous, trauma-surviving people who assert their rights clearly and without apology. This is what systems do when you step outside their preferred communication frame. They do not rebut the law. They attack tone. They pivot from substance to discipline. It is refusal disguised as “procedure.” This is the exact...
Read more

When Policy Pretends to Be Law: Provinces, Indigenous Rights, and Canada’s Constitutional Contradiction

-
Image
Canada presents itself as a human-rights-respecting nation grounded in constitutional law, reconciliation, and the rule of law. But beneath that narrative is a contradiction so normalized that most institutions no longer see it. Provincial governments and the organizations they authorize operate on Indigenous territories every day. They regulate work, health, housing, labour, compensation, and justice. They exercise delegated Crown authority. Yet many of these same institutions: Have no binding UNDRIP policy Have no structural implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action Treat Indigenous rights as symbolic, advisory, or aspirational Govern as though internal policy outranks constitutional law This is not a minor administrative gap. It is a structural contradiction at the heart of Canadian governance. Indigenous Rights Are Not Granted by Provinces Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights. These r...
Read more

About Shawn Raven

-
Image
I am Shawn Raven,   I am a writer, storyteller, and fire-carrier. My work is rooted in truth, healing, and the remembering of what it means to be fully human. I write about the world we have inherited. I write about the world we have forgotten. And I write about the world we are becoming. My voice comes from lived experience;  trauma, survival, identity, leadership, and the long path home to myself. My writing blends Indigenous worldview, philosophy, and fire: the kind that burns away illusion and awakens something real in the reader. This space, I AM THE FIRE, is where I share reflections, teachings, and pieces of my journey. It is where I speak on humanity, decolonization, culture, spirit, and the sacred connection to the Earth that modern society has tried to erase. If my words reach you, I hope they remind you of something older than fear. Something deeper than shame. Something true. We are already enough. We already belong. And it is time for all of us t...
Read more