The executive branch is in charge in making many major decisions in daily government; by implementing the idea of leadership reviews it forces the head of parties to keep their policies in check and keep with their promises. This essay will argue that leadership reviews help to keep the government in check and hold them to their principles. Shown though the use of responsible government and voting checks this allows the public to be reassured that their elected officials are following through with promises that they made. In other words, leadership reviews are a useful way of assuring the public that the leaders of parties are not doing something that will negatively affect the economy and being held accountable to their words.
Leadership Reviews are used widely throughout Canada at federal and provincial levels. A modern example of the way that leadership reviews insures that Politian’s are not using their power, as a political power to abuse the system is Alberta’s Premier Alison Redford who recently had a leadership review vote to see if there was going to be an election for a new Premier. Leadership reviews are most common in parties at the provincial level, although the federal level is not directly considered a leadership review it can be seen as a form of leadership review through responsible government. Responsible government is used in the House of Commons to ensure that the Prime Minister is respecting the wishes of the house and that they are keeping the promises that they made. Leadership Reviews are commonly seen in parties who are in power and running the government, but parties who are not in power could benefit from such policies because it could be the work of superiors that are lowering t...
... middle of paper ...
...multi-party system because it forces parties to change their original hopes for government in order to please the majority of people outside of the party overall it is beneficial to the government as it directly shows them the wishes of the people. Leadership reviews are helpful to parties in and out of power because it has the benefits of informing the parties what it is that the people are expecting from the government. Overall leadership reviews and responsible government help to keep Canada as democratic as it can be because it voices the opinions of the people outside of just election time in a peaceful and effective way.
Works Cited
Henton, D. (2013). Tories vote 77% in support of Alison Redford's leadership. Calgary Herald, Saturday November 23rd.
Malcolmson, P. & Myers, R. (2012). The Candan Regime. 5th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
...n of their cabinet, while others may choose to create a new political path without consulting the views of their party. Mellon thinks that the Canadian government is under dictatorial scrutiny, whereas Barker contradicts this belief. The idea of a prime-ministerial government is certainly an over exaggeration of the current state of Canada. There are too many outside and inside forces that can control the powers the Prime Minister of Canada. Furthermore, there are several outside sources that indicate a good government in Canada. The United Nations annually places Canada at the top, or near the top of the list of the world’s best countries in which to live. These outcomes are not consistent with the idea of a one ruler power. Canada is not ruled by one person’s ideas, suggestions, and decisions, but by government approved and provincially manipulated decisions.
John Diefenbaker was the last “old Tory” to be the Prime Minister of Canada. He was a member of the Conservative Party with deep values as well as being a British loyalist who supported the Queen. Diefenbaker was also a man that was well known for not supporting anything he thought was anti- British. This sentiment was most evident when Diefenbaker criticized the Liberal’s refusal to support Britain in the Suez Canal crisis and sided with the Americans. This loyalty the Diefenbaker had to the British Commonwealth would not serve him well as Prime Minister of Canada. In 1958, Diefenbaker would win the largest majority government in Canadian history upsetting the new leader of the Liberal Party, Lester B. Pearson, who had taken over for St. Laurent. In the election Diefenbaker would win 208 seats out of a possible 265 seats. The Liberal Party, led by Pearson would only be able to obtain 48 seats making them the Official Opposition. Five years after this historic win, John Diefenbaker would once again rewrite history by losing the largest number of seats in Canadian history. Historians who have written about Diefenbaker are confounded when they try to unravel the puzzling actions of Diefenbaker in his dealings with others concerning foreign and domestic policies. Many historians look at a few major mistakes that Diefenbaker committed during his term as Prime Minister from 1957 until 1963 which led to his collapse of power. The major events that led to the downfall of his government in 1963 included; the amount of spending and tax cut bills his government passed immediately after the election, the Avro Canada planes which Canada was building to become the leader in aeroplane technology, the Bomarc Missile Crisis in the 1960s in whi...
"Prime Minister Promotes Open Federalism." Prime Minister of Canada. N.p., 21 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 July 2014. .
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
...ment plays an important role in determining the relationship between its politicians and electorates. It also “[calculates] how votes are translated into seats of political power... it... also affects the party system, political culture, the formation of government and the structure of the executive” (Trac 5). Most importantly, candidates in an SMP system can be elected with minimal amounts of public support as they do not require a majority of the votes. To be elected to the legislature in the PR system, a candidate must have “at least 3% of the party vote across the province” (Ontario Citizens' Assembly 3). In contrast to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the views of the citizens, supports a stable and effective government, and is a simple yet practical voting system. It successfully caters to the needs of the voters, unlike the traditional system.
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
...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.
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...
Throughout the early 1980’s Canadian society began being troubled by its relationship with Quebec, it seemed more isolated than ever. After being promised a deal following the separation referendum and not seeing any development, it appeared they were more bitter and angry than ever before. They could not be forced to sign the Constitution Act of 1982, therefore, there was much pressure for the federal government to come up with a quick solution to either lose Quebec or finally win them over. Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984 and made it his personal goal to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. Mulroney planned on completing this task by opening up the constitution and meeting various requests Quebec had, along with repairing other flaws that seemed to be dragging the country down.
Is it a sham? Simpson, Jeffrey. A. A. The friendly dictatorship of the world. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2001.
It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in parliament, their preferred choice will have some say in the House of Commons, and finally someone can be held accountable which creates a closer knit between citizens and Members of Parliament. Nelson Wiseman argues against the MMP system because he feels that there is nothing to be fixed in Canada. If the current system has been working well thus far, there is no need to change it. MMP would allow smaller parties to have their voices heard. Unfortunately first past the post tends to have an over representation of regional parties; contrary to first past the post system, MMP lets Canadians have advocates and legislators who the majority of citizens agree with. Another advantage of MMP is the elimination of strategic voting. With MMP people can finally vote for who they want to rather than choose who the majority may prefer. A change in the electoral system of Canada will create a more fair and just Parliament governing the citizens.
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.
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.
"Prime Minister Promotes Open Federalism." Prime Minister of Canada. N.p., 21 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 July 2014. .