Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on monarchy
The monarchy system should be abolished and replaced with the American styled republicanism for 3 reasons. I believe that the monarchy should be abolished as it is a waste of time and money on people across the world who have very small impact on our government. The monarchy is just a status figure as it contains the Queen who really does not have much power or control on what goes on in Canada, and lastly Canada can save some money or use in it better places if we abolish the Monarchy.
The Monarchy should be abolished as it is a waste of time and money on people across the world who have very small impact on our government. The governor general David Johnston has more power over Canada than anyone else including the Queen, many people do not even know who or what the Governor General is. The Governor General has the power to appoint senators, judges and the Speaker of the Senate, the Governor provides royal consent to the legislation, and acting as the commander in chief of the Canadian Forces. Overall the Governor General has the power to assemble and dissolve parliament. All of this work can be done right here in Canada and there is no need for a foreign connection as they have little power on what goes on here. Also
…show more content…
The Queen barely has any power, the Queen just chooses who the governor generals are and the lieutenant governor is for each province. This is useless as the Prime Minister can pick these people instead of having someone fly across the ocean to choose a couple political positions. Next the Queen gets to sign legal documents on decisions made by the Prime minister and other cabinet ministers, but the Queen really has no say as she has to sign. Lastly Canada is not a young country which doesn’t need foreign countries to support it. Canada is going to be 150 years old this year and is already a well developed country that has proven to be
The governor general, who assigns judges of the federal courts and advises the prime minister as well as accomplishing those duties of the prime minister. The prime minister has power to assign and fire Cabinet ministers, and hundreds of other federal government office holders. The Crown Corporation that is established by the Government of Canada.
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
However, for Australia to become a republic, the points stated alone would be insufficient to undertake the move from a monarchy. For these changes to be instigated we need to ask, “Why?” How would a republican Australia be of benefit to the country, if at all? It is apparent that the most logical and coherent argument against Australia becoming a republic is that our system of government in place currently is completely fine. Queen Elizabeth, as Head of State, does not interfere with policies or laws from being implemented, nor is the advancement and development in our country hindered by the Queen. Furthermore, there are many more serious issues which must be dealt with in Australia, such as better conditions for refugees, taking assertive action in combating domestic violence and treating all citizens here like they are proper human beings. If these matters cannot be dealt with first, then how can Australians be asked to address other comparatively minor issues such as electing who our Head of State becomes? Australia would also be stripped of certain aspects such as the Queen’s Birthday Long Weekend, which I would be correct in assuming that no one would want to lose a day off. Hence, unless the benefits of a republic conclusively determine that our country would be in an enhanced position to the current monarchy, there seems no fit
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.
If we were to become a republic would we forget that the English were the first people to colonise our country, and instead of learning about the colonisation of our country, learn about the way in which we broke free from England and the monarchy? We owe our existence in Australia to the English and we are treated very well by them - they let us manage our own affairs and don't interrupt in the running of the country, while still offering their support if we should ever need it, and if we were to break free from this "tight rein" by the monarchy, would they still offer their support when we needed it?Becoming a republic would achieve nothing and we would lose our valuable ties with England and the monarchy.
Australia is currently a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Queen is our current head of state. We also have a written constitution, which limits the Queen and other authorities power. The governor general, who is appointed on the advice of the prime minister, represents the Queen.
America was well-situated to break with the monarchy for a number of reasons. One was that the distance limited Britain’s capacity to govern the colonies. Another reason was that for more than a century, Americans had already been responsible for managing their own domestic affairs, including taxation and electing their own leaders.
It is cold hard fact that Canadian government is not entirely democratic. The question remains of how to deal with this. Canadian government, as effective as it currently is, has major factors in their system that have a negative effect on Canadians. Our current voting system favors the higher-populated provinces and creates a tyranny of the majority. Our Senate is distinctly undemocratic as it is an assigned position. Our head of State, the Prime Minister, holds too much power. Unless we resolve these issues, our government will remain far from a perfect governing system.
...eft our own system to fester and decay. Unfortunately for Canadians, the only way that we can actually change our electoral system is if the party in power lets us. The problem with that is the ruling party generally has been granted a phony majority from the antiquated SMP system, and so changing the electoral system is the last thing that they want to do, unless they one day find themselves on the outside looking in. In 1984 when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership, Chretien told reporters in Brandon that if elected he would introduce proportional representation “right after the next election”6. In 1993, two elections later, Chretien would win a majority with only 41% of the popular vote, and interestingly enough noble plans for reform were soon scuttled. In 1997 the Liberals won only 39% of the vote, and in 2000 only 42%, and then in 2003 Chretien retired after ten years as our unjustly elected dictator without ever raising the issue of electoral reform. With the current minority government, we have an unprecedented chance to create real change, and we can only hope that the voice of the majority gets through and our government does what the people actually want.
Trying to apply new reforms in the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws be based on democratic principles.
This essay has argued that there are many limitations that the Prime Minister is subjected too. The three most important are federalism in Canadian society, the role of the Governor General, and the charter of rights and freedoms. I used two different views of federalism and illustrated how both of them put boundaries on the Prime Minister’s power. Next I explain the powers of the governor general, and explained the ability to dissolve parliament in greater detail. Last I analyzed how the charter of rights of freedoms has limited the Prime Minister’s power with respect to policy-making, interests groups and the courts. The Prime Minister does not have absolute power in Canadian society, there are many infringements on the power that they have to respect.
Before arguing whether Canada should go back to the role of monarchy, we should understand what is monarchy. Monarchy is a form of government system that can occupied a country and count it as their property. There are only twenty-two countries that Britain did not invade, so if Canada is not
The Prime Minister of Canada has an integral role within the Canadian parliament. In the political Parliamentary system of Canada, the Prime Minister wields the executive responsibility. He is accountable for an assortment of administrative, managerial, and supervisory decisions in effect across the country. The executive role is the branch of government that is generally responsible for creating laws, and enforcing the regulations to ensure these laws are observed.
Canada has a central government designed to deal with the country as a whole. Things like national defense, banking, currency, and commerce are controlled by the central government. All other matters are left to the provinces to deal with. Such as education, hospitals, and civil rights are responsibilities of the states. The Canadian Parliament consists of two houses. Their Senate is made up of 104 members who serve until the age of seventy-five.
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?