Introduction:
Throughout history there has been progression on how the government has been organized and, alternatively, its position, and role in the public sphere. Two dominant, different government systems have emerged in North American politics, the presidential and parliamentary systems, in America and Canada respectively. These neighbouring systems have components, which are different but also share some commonalities; these key characteristics propose several strengths and weaknesses among them.
Even though the presidential system provides stability of position during the president’s ruling term, the inability to pass laws swiftly in the legislature postpones any active political change, thus the parliamentary system of Canada is a more balanced and reliable system of government in regards to passing bills and making a significant change. However, in terms of power, the president has more control over the vast majority of the country. The prime minister, although still powerful, is restricted by the vote of non-confidence, and is vulnerable to losing his position at any time. A recent event that occurred in America from October 1st to 16th 2013, involved the US federal government temporarily shutting down, after congress failed to enact legislation appropriating funds for 2014. This indicates the potential unpredictability and instability of the American system. In justification to this, differences and similarities amongst both systems will be accounted for, as well as the strengths and flaws that follow in order to evaluate which system offers a better balance overall.
Part I: Features of the Parliamentary and Presidential Systems of Government
Role of the Head of State and Government:
The parliamentary system ...
... middle of paper ...
...nt In England. New York: The Viking Press, 1938.
8. Lees, John. The Political System of the United States. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1969.
9. Mainwaring, Scott. “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination.” Sage Publications, no. 2 (1993): abstract. doi: 10.1177/0010414093026002003. http://cps.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/content/26/2/198.short.
10. Paul. “Advantages and Disadvantages of a Parliamentary System.” enfranchise. July 12 2011 (5:55 p.m.). http://enfranchise.wordpress.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-a-parliamentary-system/.
11. Walles, Malcolm. British and American Systems of Government. UK: Phillip Allan Publishers Limited, 1988.
12. Warren, John. “Fraser Reaffirms Strength of Parliamentary System.” The Ottawa Citizen. Oct 16, 1989. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/docview/239398777?accountid=13800.
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.
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
...Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. Knopf, New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
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.
Gibbins, R A New Senate for a More Democratic Canada. Calgary: The Canada West Foundation, 1981
Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: Random House Publishing, 1973).
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Dye, Thomas R. , L. Tucker Gibson Jr., and Clay Robinson. Politics In America. Brief Texas Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005.
Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage, 1989.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
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.
The following paper will discuss the branches of the United States government. The paper will include reasons why our forefathers divided the government into the legislative, judicial, and presidential branches; how the branches interact with each other and how the braches are balanced in power. This paper will also discuss the success of the three branches and how conflict arose between supporters of a strong federal government versus supporters of states’ rights. Finally, the paper will include possible suggestions of different efficiency designs along the way.
Wattenberg, Martin P. (1986). The decline of American political parties 1952-1984. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
For years, countries have had different legislatures bicameral and unicameral. The features of each legislatures are distinct from one another. It even accounts to various vices and virtues. Both legislatures exist in various countries in the world. The reason to which varies in each place. Legislatures are essential for a society to perform politically well. However, the political structure of every nations varies thus, there exist no simple generalization. The structural arrangements of different legislatures are distinct in relation to their number of chambers available. (Danziger, J. N. (1996))