More handpicked essays just for you.
Benefits of monarchy in the uk
Advantages and disadvantages of monarchical
Advantages and disadvantages of monarchical
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Canada, the type of government it should have is a monarchy. Although, there are many benefits and disadvantages to a monarchy, there are many drawbacks to having a republic government. Canada is a theatre, in which every citizen played a significant role. Of this grand production, the monarchist is a playwright who tampers with the script to give Canada the benefits, while giving the nation it’s own independence.
Monarchy is a form of government in a state, in which an individual has sovereign power. The ruler is known as the monarch, which refers to the head of state or ruler of a monarchy (Makarenko, 2007). The majority of monarchs can hold the position for their lifetime; however, their authority can be transmitted in two avenues, they either abdicate the throne or pass away, and in most cases, their families succeed them (Makarenko, 2007). There are two different types of monarchy: absolute and constitutional monarchy (Makarenko, 2007). Absolute monarchy is when the monarch has complete control, while constitutional monarchy is when the monarch is recognized known as the head of state, but with certain constraints (Makarenko, 2007).
Republic is a form of government, in which the people and their elected representatives hold power (Makarenko, 2007). It is an alternative to the monarchy, which focuses on the “hereditary royal lineage” ((Makarenko, 2007). The people of state with the republic government play a significant role in many decisions (Makarenko, 2007). Some examples of this are participating in elections and reforming certain things (Makarenko, 2007).
The form of government that Canada orchestrated is commonly known as a constitutional monarchy (Makarenko, 2007). This includes formal authority given to the ...
... middle of paper ...
...me minister who is the controller. We see this in many examples, such as when the prime minister tells the representative when to dissolve parliament. Nevertheless, the Canadian government may seem dependent on monarchial approval, in reality the true authoritative power lies within the Parliament; the monarch is merely a figurehead. . Another reason why keeping the constitutional monarchy is because it preserves and honours the historical process of becoming the country we are today. As well, it makes sure that the elected head is not the head of state. Thus, keeping powers of government distributed equally.
Keeping the monarchy system in Canada has many benefits to it. There are many disadvantages to the monarchy and a republic government. Thus, the Canadian government should remain a monarchy. If nothing is wrong it, then there is no real reason to change it.
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, is known for both the great contributions he brought to Canada and for the scandals he was involved in. The one event that makes him most famous to Canadians is the King-Byng Affair of 1926. During this event, Mackenzie King asked Lord Byng to dissolve parliament in order to force a new election as he had lost with a minority. Because King’s intentions were to regain a majority government, Byng refused out of distrust for King’s plans and King was replaced in power by the Conservatives. While William Lyon Mackenzie King’s actions were in accordance with all the laws regarding his power as Prime Minister, he acted for selfish reasons thus putting him in the wrong. Mackenzie King’s and Lord Byng’s histories will be quickly analyzed to understand their actions in the affair. Right after, King’s options and reasons for dissolving parliament will be analyzed. Thirdly, Byng’s options and reasons for refusing King’s request will be researched. Once enough evidence has been collected, the end results of this affair will be discussed and the conclusion as to whether or not King was right to go against responsible government will be made.
In conclusion Canada gained independence because of a series of events that took place during the twentieth century. If it hadn’t been for these events, Canada to this day might have been a part of the British Empire. Through discussion on the Chanak affair we signalled that we wanted autonomy. Through our hard work and lives, the world knew we had the ability to stand alone as a strong nation. While, our international reputation of being a “peacekeeping” country the right to stand as an independent self-governing nation. But finally through the Canada Act, we stood solely independent from our Empire. It is obvious that the twentieth century provided us with great chances to become an independent strong nation.
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.
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).
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.
Currently, Canada remains the world’s second largest country, full of vast and rich resources from all corners of the nation. None of the accomplishments and achievements that Canada has made to date would have been possible without Confederation. Without intense pressure from the Americans, and without the common goal that a few men shared of unifying a country, Canada would not be the strong, free, independent and united nation that it is today.
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.
It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
In the contentious world of politics the actors at times find themselves at an impasse, unable to move forward between their conflicting visions. In these moments the courts may be asked to mediate between the different levels of government by providing constitutional or legislative advice. These scenarios can become perilous because since the courts must provide insight on issues that are political without stepping outside of its jurisdiction. Regardless of their dangers, however, I would argue that the reference instrument has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing political chaos. In the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Secession Reference the courts ++++---In order to illustrate the importance of reference cases in the Canadian system, despite their shortcomings, I will first look at the history of the advisory mechanism with a view to explain the roll of the courts. I will then look at the constitutional perspectives the courts took in several reference cases, especially the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Cessession Reference. In the next section I will explore the ways in which the courts opinions in these cases impacted Canadian federalism to determine the constitutionality of their advice. Finally I will explore the eventualities of a system without reference cases to demonstrate why they are so important. Attention will also be paid to the reference system of the United States in order to provide a comparative view. I will argue that in reference cases the Supreme Court takes on an important role as a mediator between political actors, however, the Court must act with caution as these are perilous grounds where suggestions can cross into political territory. – Indeed, political actors can abuse the system, >re...
Bennet, P.; Cornelius J.; and Brune, N. Canada: A North American Nation. Second Edition ed. Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1995.
O DODSON, Edward. “Canada: an idea that must survive”. Online at: http://www.uni.ca/livreouvert/dodson_e.html , consulted on February 9, 2004.
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.
In this context, an absolute monarch would be revolve around a single leader (usually a king) that would make decisions without the assistance of the aristocracy, such as a the nobility, the parliament, or other organizations that include the interest of wealthy families or government officials. In this case, the king would act alone in deciding the political, economic, and military decisions of the people, which would illustrate the absolute power that is wielded by the individual making the decisions. This governmental interpretation of the term “absolute” defines how a king would rule without the interference or inhibitions of an aristocracy or democratic form of government. Of course, the realization of this type o government can be better explained through the context of the absolute monarchy in France, which was founded in the leadership of king Louis