The American and Canadian Federal systems are both “advanced liberal democracies” (62), though they are founded on different ideologies. America’s system was founded on preservation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” rooted in a fear of a government that held power too centralized. Canada’s motto, in contrast, is in pursuit of “peace, order, and good government.” Canadians, unlike their southern counterparts, are less weary of government intervention (as evident in policies like nationalized healthcare) and therefore have instituted a more centralized government power structure than that of the fifty United States. The Canadian system is an efficient form of government that has the potential to be even more powerful and efficient than the American one, as long as Parliament is under a majority government. Implication of the system here in the states would not be practical, due to historical issues between the parent nation of the United Kingdom and the rebellious US.
Executive and Legislative branches are separate under the United States Constitution. The framers’ saw this as a necessary step in order to secure power from becoming too centralized under one body – and consequentially oppressive. These powers are merged in the Canadian system. The executive leader (the Prime Minister) is the leader of the Parliament’s dominant party and holds tenure for a maximum five year term or until Parliament no longer holds confidence in him or her. The Prime Minister is not nationally elected – a potential problem for an American populace – instead he must only be voted in by his Parliamentary district. Americans would also find fault in the lack of legislative approval of Cabinet appointments. The saying “all politics is local” is obviously taken quite literally in the dominion of Canada.
Parties take on an important role in Parliamentary politics. In a majority government, the ruling party can pass policy and laws on a whim, using party discipline to keep their members in line for easy passage of controversial bills. However, under minority government things proceed with much more timidity. Now the ruling party must garner support from opposition parties and must be more willing to compromise on controversial issues. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are constantly under pressure from a threat of a “No Confidence” Vote, with a “Shadow Cabinet” standing ready in the wings to assume their place. Americans would see this as an unstable leadership and would more than likely be uncomfortable with it. Minority administrations rarely survive past a year and a half, according to Eagles and Manna. Canadian politics has historically been dominated by the Conservative and Liberal parties. Recently however the system has shifted from the bi-polar orientation to one that distributes power amongst multiple parties. Parties like Parti Québécois and the Green party have recently stepped into the national spotlight, distributing power more widely across the Parliament and decreasing the probability of a PM with a majority rule.
The courts in Canada are a little more confusing. Under the Confederation Act, the establishment of a Canadian Supreme court was described by Eagles and Manna as being “conspicuously absent”. The act only called for the establishment of a general court of appeal for the new nation. As a dominion, Canadian law was seen to be subordinate to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United Kingdom; and as such, the Fathers saw little need for a “last resort” judicial body. It took eight years after Confederation for the need to be recognized and for the Supreme Court Act of 1875 to be passed by Parliament. Over the years, the Canadian Supreme Court has passed in what would be in America very controversial rulings. They allowed homosexual couples to join in marriage, and have been activist in several other civil rights issues for groups often underrepresented in the national Parliament.
In short, the Canadian system is not too different from the American model, but it does differ in several important ways. Power is more centrally located in the Parliament and the Prime Minister. The chief executive is not nationally elected, and is more easily subjected to a removal from office. The party system has evolved to be more multi-polar than the system here in the states. Both nations do however share a Federal system that grants a portion of independent powers to the provinces/states that are subordinate to the binding powers of the national government, along with a Supreme Court to serve as a chief judiciary body. The Canadian system works – for Canada. I find that their system of electing the Prime Minister would be too indirect to be satisfactory for American culture. And besides, the American system has worked well (with only one union threatening hiccup) for the last two-hundred and twenty-one years, why change to a Parliament now?
Executive and Legislative branches are separate under the United States Constitution. The framers’ saw this as a necessary step in order to secure power from becoming too centralized under one body – and consequentially oppressive. These powers are merged in the Canadian system. The executive leader (the Prime Minister) is the leader of the Parliament’s dominant party and holds tenure for a maximum five year term or until Parliament no longer holds confidence in him or her. The Prime Minister is not nationally elected – a potential problem for an American populace – instead he must only be voted in by his Parliamentary district. Americans would also find fault in the lack of legislative approval of Cabinet appointments. The saying “all politics is local” is obviously taken quite literally in the dominion of Canada.
Parties take on an important role in Parliamentary politics. In a majority government, the ruling party can pass policy and laws on a whim, using party discipline to keep their members in line for easy passage of controversial bills. However, under minority government things proceed with much more timidity. Now the ruling party must garner support from opposition parties and must be more willing to compromise on controversial issues. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are constantly under pressure from a threat of a “No Confidence” Vote, with a “Shadow Cabinet” standing ready in the wings to assume their place. Americans would see this as an unstable leadership and would more than likely be uncomfortable with it. Minority administrations rarely survive past a year and a half, according to Eagles and Manna. Canadian politics has historically been dominated by the Conservative and Liberal parties. Recently however the system has shifted from the bi-polar orientation to one that distributes power amongst multiple parties. Parties like Parti Québécois and the Green party have recently stepped into the national spotlight, distributing power more widely across the Parliament and decreasing the probability of a PM with a majority rule.
The courts in Canada are a little more confusing. Under the Confederation Act, the establishment of a Canadian Supreme court was described by Eagles and Manna as being “conspicuously absent”. The act only called for the establishment of a general court of appeal for the new nation. As a dominion, Canadian law was seen to be subordinate to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United Kingdom; and as such, the Fathers saw little need for a “last resort” judicial body. It took eight years after Confederation for the need to be recognized and for the Supreme Court Act of 1875 to be passed by Parliament. Over the years, the Canadian Supreme Court has passed in what would be in America very controversial rulings. They allowed homosexual couples to join in marriage, and have been activist in several other civil rights issues for groups often underrepresented in the national Parliament.
In short, the Canadian system is not too different from the American model, but it does differ in several important ways. Power is more centrally located in the Parliament and the Prime Minister. The chief executive is not nationally elected, and is more easily subjected to a removal from office. The party system has evolved to be more multi-polar than the system here in the states. Both nations do however share a Federal system that grants a portion of independent powers to the provinces/states that are subordinate to the binding powers of the national government, along with a Supreme Court to serve as a chief judiciary body. The Canadian system works – for Canada. I find that their system of electing the Prime Minister would be too indirect to be satisfactory for American culture. And besides, the American system has worked well (with only one union threatening hiccup) for the last two-hundred and twenty-one years, why change to a Parliament now?
Comments
Post a Comment
Comment below.