When a government is accused of “stacking the deck” before the pistons of one of its prized initiatives are even installed and fired up, political difficulties are likely lurking under the hood.

The latest commanding disagreement among the legislature’s honourable members has seen both opposition parties raise objections about Premier Sandy Silver’s blueprint for engineering electoral reform in the Yukon.

The government is planning what it brands a non-partisan commission to study whether and how the ways Yukoners choose their governments should be altered. Political parties’ activities also stand to be directly affected.

In a letter to Silver published in Monday’s Star, Stacey Hassard, the interim leader of the Yukon Party, says the people who will research potential reforms affecting every voter in the Yukon should not be chosen on the sole basis of the premier’s preferences.

It can be argued that any names put forth by any party would, by some, be suspiciously viewed through a schism of partisanship.

Why would the individual be suggested, devil’s advocates would snap, if his or her nominee didn’t assume the person was aligned with the party’s goals and beliefs?

In November 2017, while debating the motion urging the government to create the commission, Hassard proposed a subamendment that it be created “in co-operation with all political parties in the Yukon Legislative Assembly.”

Silver expressed no objection to that.

Furthermore, there exists an all-party committee to review appointments to boards and committees. And, all the territory’s parties are represented on the commission that’s struck to make decisions on redrawing electoral boundaries and/or creating new ridings.

In Ottawa, the system for contemplating electoral/ridings reforms involves representation from every party in the House of Commons.

In the Yukon Party’s view, the Liberals have already prejudged and frowned upon one major feature of potential electoral reform.

In late 2018, they took the extraordinary measure of opposing their own Electoral District Boundaries Act. The defeated legislation would have added a 20th riding, based on the recommendation of the electoral boundaries commission.

Silver has brusquely dismissed the comparison of the pending commission to these tested law reform methods as an “apples and oranges” scenario, but has not elaborated on that in any persuasive fashion.

The Liberals hold government. That said, in the face of modern times and current practices, it’s a challenge to defend the thesis of unilateralism: that the selection of those who will comprise this all-important commission should rest exclusively with just one person.

Silver has said the opposition parties will have input in the body’s composition and the process of maturing the draft terms of reference into permanent dictates.

The specifics of that assurance, however, are somewhat malleable and unclear – and remain of critical importance to how this debate unfolds.

Taking full advantage of the available brain power, and benefiting from the broadest array of experience and opinions out there, is the most productive modus operandi to pursue.

The premier has condemned the Yukon Party for “playing politics” with the issue and dragging it out for several days at the expense of the question period time available for other urgent subjects.

On Thursday, though, NDP MLA Kate White joined the chorus of criticism in vigorous fashion, offering a series of spirited questions framed by the premier’s tight control of the process.

Doggedly trudging through the whirlwind of verbal flak, Silver seems curiously bent on avoiding ceding some control of this exercise to his political adversaries.

If his leading concern had been ducking controversy, the government could have proposed a four-person commission, with the opposition parties permitted to make formal, non-partisan recommendations for, say, two of those individuals.

As it stands, the premier will make his decisions on the basis of a short list of applicants provided to him by the Executive Council Office.

The ideal commission will be comprised not only of people with relevant skills and knowledge appropriate for the task, but one representing the territory’s demographic diversities.

Regardless of who is summoned to serve, given the complexities and long-term ramifications of the issues and recommendations at hand, the commission would benefit handsomely from the guidance of the Yukon’s chief electoral officer, perhaps acting as an unofficial associate or advisor.

Meanwhile, Silver’s insistence on retaining the ultimate control of the commission’s makeup will create an enormous degree of laser-beam scrutiny on both the presumed apolitical nature of his choices, and the reforms these people produce.

That, in turn, would be a good thing for the cause of promoting democracy’s neutrality.

Silver has stressed his commitment to the commission’s unfettered independence from government influence and pressures. This is likely a truthful pledge; after all, his name isn’t Justin Trudeau, and the body won’t be chaired by Jody Wilson-Raybould.

All the same, the Liberals have frequently repeated the important mantras of openness, transparency and participatory lawmaking.

The news release announcing the commission refers to “Yukoners interested in helping to strengthen our democracy (our italics) in the territory....”

A single party’s ­– no, person’s – grasp of sole control of such a vital component as the commission’s members, some submit, constitutes an unabashed and unnecessary disfigurement of democracy’s definition.

They just may have a point.