As the newly amalgamated Conservative Party prepares for its first policy convention in Montreal, the national executive (prodded one assumes by leader Steve Harper) is pushing a resolution that would scotch convention debate on the problematic "moral" issues of our times: gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia.

On these the party would have no stated position. Within reasonable limits, MPs would be free to state and vote their own views and/or those of their constituents.

This last-minute manipulation of the convention agenda has infuriated cause-pleaders on both sides.

Red Tories want the party to be pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-mercy killing, and social conservatives want it to be officially the opposite.

Although my own sympathies lie with the social conservatives, I think I'd probably side with Harper -- leave it up to the MPs.

Although the old Reform Party is now but a fading memory, it got many things right, including this.

It had no position on abortion or euthanasia, and only in its final years adopted one against gay marriage.

Even on other issues, MPs were free to vote according to their constituents' wishes, or according to their own best judgment. The party itself had very little to do with it.

This always seemed to escape the notice of the thousands of party delegates who assembled at great personal cost every two years to debate and vote on some of the most arcane subjects, such as whether to oppose drift-net fishing. They'd go for hours, moving amendments to the sub-amendments, and poring over minutiae and nuances.

I always enjoyed Reform conventions, because I liked the people. But by the end I realized that the Liberals were right. Political conventions are supposed to be huge, morale-building whoop-ups and not much else.

In our system of government, the only real function of the political party is to help reasonably like-minded people get elected and work together in Parliament.

Under our democratic system, the most important person in Parliament is not the Prime Minister, it's supposed to be the individual MP. He or she, along with 307 others, is to hold the Prime Minister and the government (meaning the cabinet) answerable to the people back home.

I won't pretend that this system is working very well. It isn't. This is mainly because MPs live in greater terror of their party leaders than of their constituents, which destroys accountability from top to bottom.

The solution, however, is not to strengthen the role of the party. It's to strengthen the role of the MP, by giving MPs control over the leader.

Until historically recently, party leaders were chosen by the parliamentary caucus, not by the membership, and the results were generally better. Making MPs accountable to leaders, rather than leaders accountable to MPs, is the death of parliamentary democracy.

This is because grassroots party members don't understand Parliament, and Parliament is where our national democracy has to happen.

Take gay marriage. Two-thirds of Canadians want it settled by referendum, and many MPs are sympathetic. Moreover, a referendum is probably the only way of resolving the issue for good. But the idea is scarcely ever mentioned, because all four party leaders in the House refuse to consider it.

If leaders had to respond to MPs to keep their jobs, as they once did, we would get a referendum.

Link Byfield is chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, and an Alberta senator-elect.