More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of the media in politics
The role of the media in politics
How mass media has influenced people's thinking about politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of the media in politics
Moreover, Smith’s concludes in chapter eight that although “the lower chamber has always provided a common place for common people, it has never been that alone” (2007, p. 139). The House has struggled with being a chamber for the people, but Smith believes that reconciliation is possible. Canada can have a parliamentary system with roots in the constitution, and at the same time, it can accommodate the enhanced power of the courts and the charter as the charter and parliament do not contradict each other, in fact, they complement each other. Smith also says: “too little is known about the House and the conventions and provisions of the constitution that touch upon its work to advocate fundamental change in the absence of close research” (2007, …show more content…
In fact, two of the issues are related to the education system and the media, while the third issue was about possible reforms to the House. First, the education system was deemed to be necessary for educating the youth and making them aware of Canada’s parliamentary system of governance. In fact, it was argued in the discussion that voting is habit forming. In other words, voting at a young age does correlate to the continuation of voting until later in life. The discussion also focused on the lack of adequate civics classes and resources in some provinces in Canada and the impact on the student’s knowledge about Canada’s political parties and elections. Second, the role of the media as the promoter of parliamentary affairs affects Canadians’ awareness of what the legislative is doing. It was argued that parliamentarians use their own social media accounts to bypass the mainstream media and promote their own views and actions to the Canadians that follow them. Also, several questions in the discussions focused on the media as the fourth estate and the fact that the news is not always reported in a non-partisan
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
This great country known as Canada, is governed smoothly because of the agreements and rules that have been in place since the beginning of confederation. The Canadian Constitution is one example of these rules. The Canadian Constitution is not just one single documentation, it is a collaboration of documents that make up one enormous document (Dyck 261). The six basic principles of the constitution are: responsible government, federalism, judicial review, the rule of law, constitutional monarchy and democracy; which all helped to shape the Constitution and therefore Canada (Dyck 266).
The Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders both faced many obstacles and concerns when working towards creating the best possible form of government for their respectable nations. The Federalist Papers seek to counter the Articles of Confederation whereas Canada’s Founding Debates is a discussion between supporters and opponents of Confederation. Between the Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders in the Founding Papers chapter Federal Union, there are many common concerns about the future of the country. When there is a change in how a country is structured, it brings concern over group rights and interest being ignored for the common good, and it is very
What principles and ideals lie at the heart of a free democratic society? Canadians take pride in their country’s values of tolerance, inclusion, and respect, and over Canada’s guaranteed freedom of expression, including the right to vote (Thevenard & Orend, 2015). In democratic Canada, “all eligible citizens have the right to participate, either directly or indirectly, in making the decisions that affect them” ("Democracy Defined"). Voting, in essence, ensures all citizens receive an equal opportunity to express their views by selecting and supporting a political party of their choice. Such an approach provides freedom of expression for all eligible citizens, allowing for the political party with the most votes to take over the ruling.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Canada is a society built on the promise of democracy; democracy being 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.” In order to operate at full potential, the people of Canada must voice their opinions and participate fully in the political system. This is why it’s shocking to see that people are becoming less engaged in politics and the voter turnout has steadily been declining over the last 20 years. This lack of participation by Canadians is creating a government that is influenced by fewer people, which is detrimental to the democratic system Canada is built on.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
A blessing or a curse, you deside. In the next 20 years British Columbia's population is expected to flourish by approximately 40% and the power use is expected to expand by 50%. With the expected demand in power many have turned to the Site C Dam as an easy out. This project would be built on the Peace River and it would be the third dam on the river. This project is so big it would cost 7.9 billion dollars. Many would benefit from the project, but the same breath many would have a great deficiency. Which would cause political parties to favour either sides of the deal, such as the Green Party and the New Democratic Party. (NDP) More then 619 million dollars would benefit the government, the province, and the tax payers. More energy is expected to come due to the WAC Benette Dam's 5% reservoir. Even thou this project comes with some great benefits, it has some big draw backs, which also causes many to favour against. This project would cause permanent damage to the environment, land and animals.
Since federalism was introduced as an aspect of Canadian political identity, the country has undergone multiple changes as to how federalism works; in other words, over the decades the federal and provincial governments have not always acted in the same way as they do now. Canada, for example, once experienced quasi-federalism, where the provinces are made subordinate to Ottawa. Currently we are in an era of what has been coined “collaborative federalism”. Essentially, as the title would suggest, it implies that the federal and provincial levels of government work together more closely to enact and make policy changes. Unfortunately, this era of collaborative federalism may be ending sooner rather than later – in the past couple decades, the federal and provincial governments have been known to squabble over any and all policy changes in sectors such as health, the environment and fiscal issues. Generally, one would assume that in a regime employing collaborative federalism there would be a certain amount of collaboration. Lately, it seems as though the only time policy changes can take place the federal government is needed to work unilaterally. One area in which collaborative federalism has been nonexistent and unilateral federalism has prevailed and positively affected policy changes is in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector.
As Americans we take pride in our liberating government. But, it is essential to ask how much we, the general public, know about our democracy. Because of the representative structure of our government, it is in our best interest to remain as knowledgeable as possible about political affairs so that we can play an active role in our democracy by voting for candidates and issues. The media, which includes print, television, and the internet, is our primary link to political events and issues. (For the purposes of this essay only print and television will be considered.) Therefore, in order to assess the success of our democracy it is necessary to assess the soundness of our media. We are lucky enough to have a media, in theory, free from government influences because of our rights to freedom of press and freedom of speech, but we are still subject to the media’s interpretation and presentation of politics, as is the danger when depending on any source for information. So, we must address how the media informs us; how successful it is at doing so; and how we should respond to it.