Introduction
A democratic government has long been favoured as the most fair and representative government for a country to have. This essay will explore the advantages and disadvantages of both minority and majority government (for example efficiency, compromise, and power) and argue that in fact neither offers a fair representation of Canadian’s due to lack of both transparency and accountability.
Parliamentary Government
In Canada there are three branches of government: the executive branch which enforces Canadian laws and carries out government business; the legislative branch which debates and passes laws; and the judicial branch which interprets the laws and dictates how punishment should be carried out. In parliamentary government the executive branch is drawn from the legislative branch and is responsible to it. The responsibility lies in the fact that the government must have the confidence (or majority support) of the House of Commons in order to remain in power and this confidence is assured through party discipline; in other words, the party expects their Members of Parliament (MP’s) to vote the way the party votes.
Minority Government
The composition of the ministry and cabinet also depends on how many seats the government controls in the House of Commons. A minority government is created when one single party has less than half the seats in the House of Commons yet more than the other parties when they stand alone. One of the main advantages in having a minority government is that the government must work with the other parties to come to a consensus regarding bills and policies; in doing this, there is broader representation of Canadian interests. While this is a benefit for Canadian citizens, it is a drawbac...
... middle of paper ...
...r votes elect individuals who will represent their values and interests. While many will argue between whether a minority or majority government better represents Canadians, this essay has shown that regardless of the type of government, the Prime Minister is able to use his power to control his MP’s, media, and opposition members in order to fulfill a personal or hidden agenda. The sheer manipulation that is possible by a Prime Minister completely undermines the transparency and accountability of true democracy.
References
Jackson, D., & Jackson, R.J. (2002). Canadian government in transition (3rd ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.
Kendall, D., Linden, R., & Murray, J. L. (2008). Sociology in our times: The essentials (4th Cdn ed.). Toronto: Nelson Education Inc.
Martin, L. (2010). Harperland: The politics of control. Toronto, ON: Penguin Group.
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is attempting to further decentralize Canadian government with, what he calls, open federalism. This essay will begin with a discourse on the evolution of Canadian federalism, then exclusively compare Harper’s approach to the proceeding Liberal governments approach, and ultimately explain why Stephen Harper’s “open federalism” methodology is the most controversial form of Canadian federalism yet.
The spread of democracy has been one of the largest and most widely heralded trends in government worldwide – its prevalence and impact has been the subject of much political discussion and debate. In many cases, however, fewer observers focus on the electoral system used by the democratic governments themselves, which are in many cases equally important to the ultimate shape of the government formed. In general, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system that is used in Canadian Federal Elections has excluded and prevented third parties from having a large impact on the national stage post-WWII, forcing a bipartisan system of government. Central to this paper is an analysis on how third parties, in this case minor broad-based parties
Even though he is remembered as Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau’s legacy did not start there. While his sixteen years as Prime Minister is said to be his greatest achievement, his reputation as a hard worker started after he graduated from the University of Montreal, when he landed a position as a desk officer for the Privy Council; he practiced law, specializing in labour and civil liberty cases –issues he later brought into focus of Canadians– from 1951 to 1961. During these years, Trudeau spent his time opposing the ‘Union Nationale’ government of Maurice Duplessis; he demanded both social and political change. “Trudeau sought to rouse opposition ...
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
Canada has been claimed to be a country of democracy and fairness, where majority rules and everyone gets a say. Though this is evident in some areas of Canada, in The House of Commons and in the political background it is not. Members of Parliament are not as powerful as they are said to be and due to party discipline, the amount of power they actually have is very limited. Party discipline has taken Members of Parliament and trained them to obey whatever the leader of the Party and their whips say, just like seals. There are several arguments supporting this issue, such as Members of Parliament are forced to vote in whatever way their Political Party wants them to, even if they do not agree with the decision. This is seen in plenty examples of Members of Parliament complaining about decisions made and not being informed about certain legislation. Another argument would be the contrast of power between the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament. The amount of power the Prime Minister and his or her leaders supresses Members of Parliament to do what they wants regardless of what power each Member of Parliament has. Also, Members of Parliament cannot make any significant change by themselves. There are many Members of Parliament that want to make personal changes in society, but cannot because party discipline makes sure they stay focused on the main party’s agenda. These arguments will prove that Members of Parliament are called to do what the parties ask and obey without hesitation. Party discipline has taken over democracy in the Political realm and has made Members of Parliament have no power or control over the decision made. Politics in Canada trains Members of Parliament to be seals.
In order to let our members of parliament to have more power and saying, we will have to cut power from the party whip and the Prime Minister. In this way no one can force anyone to make a predetermined vote according to party lines rather than their personal conviction. In taking away the power from the PM and party whips will allow the riding representatives more freedom in which power is one
In 2012, the Canadian Senate became embroiled in a scandal that is still ongoing, and still having an effect on Canadian political life today. At times in the 20th century, there have been calls for the reform, or even the abolition of the Senate completely. The current scandal has resulted a renewal of the frequent calls for reform that have frequently accompanied the many questionable actions of Senators. The structure of the Senate, and its outdated rules of appointment and procedure are also frequently the target of reformers in Canada. It is the contention of this paper that the Canadian Senate be reformed to represent the democracy that is Canada in the 21st Century, as this body is outdated and representative of entrenched party interests, as well as of a system that dates back to the days of aristocratic and upper-class privilege.
Democracy is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (Democracy, n.d.). Canadians generally pride themselves in being able to call this democratic nation home, however is our electoral system reflective of this belief? Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy that has been adopted from the British system. Few amendments have been made since its creation, which has left our modern nation with an archaic system that fails to represent the opinions of citizens. Canada’s current “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system continues to elect “false majorities” which are not representative of the actual percentage of votes cast. Upon closer examination of the current system, it appears that there are a number of discrepancies between our electoral system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other nations provide Canada with excellent examples of electoral systems that more accurately represent the opinions of voters, such as proportional representation. This is a system of voting that allocates seats to a political party based on the percentage of votes cast for that party nationwide. Canada’s current system of voting is undemocratic because it fails to accurately translate the percentage of votes cast to the number of seats won by each party, therefore we should adopt a mixed member proportional representation system to ensure our elections remain democratic.
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
Canada runs on a democratic model of governing based on the British parliamentary system. Its parliament is thus divided into two chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. Elected politicians are seated within The House of Commons while the Senate occupies qualified citizens which are appointed by the Prime Minister. Parliament’s purpose is to hold responsibility for passing legislations and the choosing of government, referring to the political party with the largest amount of seats. Depending on the results of the election, Canada has the potential of having either a majority, minority or in the rare case a coalition government. Customarily, an election in Canada usually ends up forming a majority government. The party with more than
Total control remains with the politicians up to five years at a time. And when voting day finally arrives, issues are drowned out by one big question: which leader/party should be the Government/Premier, or the Government/Prime Minister? Even when issues are ...
Another huge weakness of the president is that a president’s party often does not have a congressional majority. A prime minister’s party always has a majority in parliament. Does this really mean anything? Yes it does, it creates a divided government that creates huge conflict and disagreement. Aga...