Does Canada have a unique political culture?
Introduction
The Canadian political culture is multifaceted, and the debate as to its uniqueness can take different approaches depending on the aspect of analysis. Canada, as one the biggest countries in North America, has one of the strongest political orientation in the region. Most of what she does is influenced by other countries within the region and abroad. To some extent, the political culture of Canada has some similarities to those of countries in North America and Europe. Some similarities can also be drawn to the Australian political culture, and few elements borrowed from the United States’ culture. In this perspective therefore, the Canadian political culture is not unique entirely.
…show more content…
In this case, the scope within which the term unique is applied must be varied. Ideally, the game of politics is almost the same in every country, as the foundation of politics is based on a need to address certain ways of doing things within that country, or any other political boundary. Therefore, political culture defines the various values, collective opinions, and attitudes of people towards politics. It is important to note that not everyone can be satisfied by a given political school of thought, even though in the same political boundaries. This is why most countries have adopted the concept of democracy and assigned the power of decision making to the majority. In this manner, the law is formed by an expression of the majority (Pierce, 2000). The conception of democracy is embraced by many countries, and most of them tend to make political decisions based on what other countries have done, and succeeded in the previous. Therefore, no country can authoritatively declare that their political culture is unique, in that, it does not exist anywhere else. The term unique as used in this paper may not refer to the possibility that the political culture in Canada does not relate to any other, but rather that it is identifiable to the Canadians, as it could also be identifiable to other people elsewhere, though, not …show more content…
As earlier stated in this paper, Canada’s political culture might not be unique in essence after all. Many similarities can be drawn between the Canadian political culture and that of other North American powers and European cultures. Other similarities can also be made with the culture of the United States of America and Australia (Chakravartty, 2008). Therefore, the position of Canada in the global polities makes it identify its political cultures to other global powers in the region and abroad. Like most countries in Northern America and Europe, Canada’s political culture embraces and emphasizes on the constitutional law, personal liberty, and religion freedom and autonomy. The inception of the aforementioned ideas was majorly from the British common law, the English civil traditions, and the civil law of the French and the aboriginal government of North America (Feld and Boyd, 2013). These forms of engagement are as well shared with other countries through the definition of their political
Today Canada and the United States are major trading partners, allies, and two neighboring countries with a long history of cooperation with each other. But is it possible for Canada to protect its independence and culture living next door to the country so powerful and rich as the United States. Since the Canadian confederation, Canada started developing relations with the U.S. As the years passed by, Canada began to relay on the United States in the national defense. Many Canadians think that the military, political and economical dependence would not make a difference to their daily life. But today more then even Canadian culture is affected by the American influence. Media, American artists, economic dependence, American propaganda and political pressure from the United States is making Canada too Americanized. All of these factors reflect on the social life of ordinary Canadians threatening the heritage and the traditions that define Canada as independent country.
Canada has had a long and storied history especially in the 20th century. A key part of this history is Canada’s road to autonomy. The first step on this road is Canada’s role in fighting and ending World War I. The second step is Canadian involvement in the United Nations’ early days to the mid 1950’s. The last step on the road to autonomy is the Constitution Act, 1982. These three moments in time form the backbone of Canada’s road to autonomy.
...wo constitutional documents may be similar in respect to their provisions respecting rights, it would not necessarily follow that claims of violation of rights would receive the same response from the courts of both nations. A proper analysis of why this is so would require a book-length account of the constitutional and political history of Canada and the United States. It would include but would not be limited to the selection and role of judges, the role of legislatures and political leadership, the attitudes and practices of the police and administrative agencies, and, not least, popular attitudes towards rights, minorities, and government. In short, the whole of a people’s way of life.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper Human Rights is the Internment of those of Japanese descent or origin during the Second World War. Also the White Paper that was published by the government continues the theme of Human Rights being violated to the utmost extreme. All these events, as well as many others in history, give foundation to the idea that “Canada as a champion for Human Rights is a myth”.
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
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
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
Canada is a fair and Open society in which any talented person can succeed, Canada’s cultural Values seem to be open towards women and other traditionally under represented group entering politics but this still dwells on the traditional role of what constitute a good leadership style (Bashevkin S, Pg.22). In an open system like Canada, inequalities are common and measured in three dist...
The culture of Canada refers to the shared values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs that are a representative of Canada and Canadians. Throughout Canada's history, its culture has been influenced by American culture because of a shared language, proximity, television and migration between the two countries. Over time, Canadian-American relations have helped develop Canada’s identity during the years 1945-1982; thus introducing changing social norms, media and entertainment. In support of this, due to the United States being approximately 9.25 times larger in population and having the dominant cultural and economic influence, it played a vital role in establishing Canada’s identity. With Canada being its neighbour, naturally, the United States would influence their way of life upon Canada.
This paper will prove how regionalism is a prominent feature of Canadian life, and affects the legislative institutions, especially the Senate, electoral system, and party system as well as the agendas of the political parties the most. This paper will examine the influence of regionalism on Canada’s legislative institutions and agendas of political part...
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.
According to Daniel Elazer, there are three separate manifestations of the American political culture. Daniel states that there wasn’t just one political culture that there was three, these being moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic. Daniel states that each individual state has a culture type of the three that were named above. He shows that the southern states are more of the traditionalistic type. Elazer goes on to explain that migration in the 19th century gave pattern to the dominant cultures, and that migration was happening from east to west. As these people migrated throughout the United States not only did they move to get a new life or so to say a fresh start, these people also took their values with them. Dominant culture
In Canada’s democratic government, voting is a powerful way for citizens to communicate their values. The leader who is chosen reflects the power of the Canadians’ values. Thus, to the government, every vote matters, assuring Canadians that their opinions matter. Today, Canada recognizes voting as a fundamental right for all of their citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights effectively protects this right of all Canadians, even minorities, through section 3. “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a large legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”. This ensures equality for vote to all Canadians. Equality is to allow all Canadians equal opportunity, even if they are of different race, religion, gender and etcetera. However, in the past, this fundamental right has not always been accessible to all. In fact, voting was considered a privilege where citizens had to qualify to have the ability to vote. The rules were so strict that only eleven percent of the past population of Canada could have voted, compared to today’s seventy-eight percent. Many of these rules of who could vote and who could not were very unjust. This was especially seen in minority groups who did not have the franchise, the right to vote.. In this essay, it will be seen that the inequalities to vote made racial exclusions, religious exclusions and gender exclusions more pronounced. It will be seen that the government treated certain races with intentional discrimination creating a lack of an opportunity to vote. As well, the government showed prejudice to certain religious groups, denying these groups their ability to vote. And, finally, it will be seen that views against women aided ...
Canada is an example of a nation with the question of a country wide unification among all its citizens on the table since the time of confederation in 1867 and even a few years prior. What some these factors that make Canada different from areas around it? How can a country that dominates such large land mass and that bares such vast cultural differences, be united? Can Canadians ever come to agreement upon the values they hold to be important? The debates of these questions continue to plague Canadian parliaments, especially when examining the differences between Canada and the province Quebec. Even though many argue and hope for Canada’s unity in the future, the differences in political socialization and culture present throughout the country creates a blurry vision of Canadian harmony and makes it extremely difficult to realistically vision Canadian unification. Is that, however, a bad thing?