More handpicked essays just for you.
Powers and limitations of prime minister
What is the power and position of the british prime minister
Powers and limitations of prime minister
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The prime minister is undoubtedly the central figure in Canadian government and politics. At the top of the hierarchy within the system of parliamentary government, he or she is often called the ‘first among equals’, having the understood role of a leader who works side by side with the rest of government in accomplishing the matters of Parliament. However in truth, there are no true equals to the prime minister, and government does not always work as the ideal team as it is made out to be. In terms of power, the prime minister is always at the top, at the so-called ‘apex of power’ . Several factors have given rise to this prime ministerial power, these mainly being the prime minister’s status within Parliament and the conventions of responsible …show more content…
The prime minister’s “position of primacy” within government is essentially reinforced by this status – being the leader of the majority party within Parliament by itself already affords a significant amount of support and authority for the prime minister to draw upon. Of course, to ensure this support and control requires party discipline , and this is where the powers from being party leader come into play. There are two main powers which the prime minister can draw from to ensure a disciplined party, namely the abilities to approve party candidates in elections and to expel members of parliament from the government caucus. The authority to approve party candidates for the ballot was initially given to the party leader after an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, wherein the party affiliation of each candidate was added to the ballot. The reason for handing the party leader this responsibility was to relieve the chief electoral officer from involvement in intra-party conflicts concerning candidates. As such, this responsibility, originally for the purpose of efficiency and convenience, becomes just another power in the hands of the prime …show more content…
This status comes from the arrangement of Parliament according to the Westminster model, on which Canada bases its own government. The executive and legislative branches are put together in a ‘fusion of powers’, and through this, the prime minister is also part of these two branches. Thus, not only is the prime minister is able to control his or her own party as party leader, but also Parliament itself, as Head of Government. The key factor that makes this status vital to the prime ministerial power is the ability to appoint positions within Parliament, particularly those within the Cabinet. The prime minister is completely free to select whoever he or she wishes to become ministers in the Cabinet. There are no formal rules in place to constrain the prime minister on the way he or she may organize the government, and therefore there are also no constraints to the organization of the Cabinet. The pool for selection of the Cabinet tends to be that of the government caucus, but senators and members of other parties within Parliament may also be appointed. Those appointed are also then typically assigned with a government department to administer, but with some exceptions, such as the government leader in the Senate who instead has non-departmental-focused responsibilities to carry out. The duties of these ministers and the scope of the matters Cabinet deals with is
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.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau was arguably one of the most vivacious and charismatic Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen. He wore capes, dated celebrities and always wore a red rose boutonniere. He looked like a superhero, and often acted like one too. Some of the landmark occurrences in Canadian history all happened during the Trudeau era, such as patriating the constitution, creating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1980 Quebec Referendum. However, it is Trudeau’s 1969 “white paper” and the Calder legal challenge which many consider to be one of his most influential contributions to Canadian history.
Sir Henri Charles Wilfrid Laurier, commonly known as Wilfrid Laurie, the seventh Prime Minister of Canada from 11 July 1896 to 6 October 1911, was Canada's first francophone prime minister. He is often considered one of the country's greatest statesmen. He is well known for his policies of conciliation, expanding of the Confederation, and compromise between French and English Canada. His policies and actions helped Canada in various areas, including culture, diplomatic, and economic. He is well known for his policies of conciliation, expanding of Confederation, and compromise between French and English Canada. His vision for Canada was a land of individual liberty and decentralized federalism.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is attempting to further decentralize Canadian government with, what he calls, open federalism. This essay will begin with a discourse on the evolution of Canadian federalism, then exclusively compare Harper’s approach to the proceeding Liberal governments approach, and ultimately explain why Stephen Harper’s “open federalism” methodology is the most controversial form of Canadian federalism yet.
Quebec has struggled with a need to be maitres chez nous “masters of their own house” (Young, 1998). Many attempts at resolving Quebec's issues has resulted in tensions from both sides. Because Quebec has a strong national identity, and do not define themselves as strictly Canadian, Quebec is seen as difficult, unyielding and discontented. Quebec's separation perhaps is inedible and the future of Canada questionable. Canada without Quebec will bring about many complications and whether there is a rest of Canada (ROC) after Quebec a major challenge. Western alienation and the lack of representation in federal affairs will be a factor; moreover, past actions and historical events may have turned Canada into a time bomb, and the deterioration of the provinces the only sulotion. How First Ministers react to Quebec's sovereignty regarding economic factors, political structure, and constitutional issues will be of great importance. Whether emotional issues will play a major role in decision making is subjective; however, it is fair to say that it will be an emotionally charged event and it could either tear apart the ROC or fuse it together. Placing emphasis on investigating what keeps Canada together is perhaps the key to Canada's future, and salvaging a relationship with Quebec.
Spicer, Keith. 1991. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future: Report to the People and Government of
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.
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
The Canadian constitution is bereft of democratic legitimacy; an alluring term for political democratic deficit. Over the past years, the unsuccessful attempts to reform its laws have made passing new bills and regulations almost an unreachable goal for every newly elected prime minister. This inflexibility in adapting new laws made the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution known only by few reforms. The lack of democratic accountability in the Canadian parliamentary democracy is demonstrated not only in its electoral system, but also in its national parliament and at the federal level of its politics. Many reforms must be addressed in order to make the Canadian democracy healthier.
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.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
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.
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.