Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
A minority government allows for the Prime Minister to maintain several important resources that are essential for an effective government (Akash, et al. 2010, 217-218). The governing party is in control of the “budget process, delegate legislation and prerogative powers including the right to seek an early election” (Akash, et al. 2010, 218). The minority government is also in control of the Civil Service machine (Akash, et al. 2010, 218). By keeping these powers, the governing power still maintains a large amount of power within parliament and it does not hinder policy making or legislative processes. However, a minority government does slow down policy making and legislative processes because there is a greater demand for negoti...
... middle of paper ...
... reflect well on the government and could even lead to a future majority government. Lastly, in order to maintain confidence of the House the government makes pacts with other parties in exchange for their confidence for a certain amount of time. This ensures a stable government for a certain amount of time. All in all, a minority government benefits the government and the public.
Works Cited
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
Cody, Howard. "Minority Government in Canada: The Stephen Harper Experience." In American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 1. 27-42. Routledge, 2008.
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not.
For the MPs in Canada, party discipline is the core for their actions. For them, collective responsibility plays a big part in their agenda. As a party, they are held responsible for any decision that their party makes, and are expected to defend it at any given point of time. For a majority government, party discipline becomes an even more important issue as it is directly related to the term of the Prime Minister (PM). Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the PM must gain the support of the House in order to stay in his role. This is where high party discipline comes into place. With it, the PM will not have to worry about being dismissed by the Governor General. Should the high party discipline deteriorate and gives away into a low one, such as the one in the States, the government will be in a constant potential risk of collapsing into paralysis. Once the leader of the cabine...
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.
Spicer, Keith. 1991. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future: Report to the People and Government of
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
David Kilgour and John Kirsner (1988), “Party Discipline and Canadian Democracy”, retrieved February 22nd, 2011 from http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/lop/infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=126&art=777.
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
This is confirmed by the period 1945-79, when power tended to alternate frequently between the Labour and Conservative parties. However, during this period, Labour won power twice with a majority of less than twenty seats, resulting in a near hung parliament. This tends to weaken the idea that the electoral pendulum has swung evenly for both parties. It is important to consider the period of time looked when attempting to identify which system best describes
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Newman, Garfield et al. Canada A Nation Unfolding. Toronto: Mc Graw – Hill Ryerson Limited, 2000.
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
The political incentives that spawned parties are transparent. In any system where collective choices are made by voting, organization pays. When action requires winning majorities on a continuing basis in multiple settings, organization is absolutely essential. The Constitution’s provisions for enacting laws and electing leaders therefore put a huge premium on building majority alliances across institutions and electoral units. Parties grew out of the efforts of political entrepreneurs to build such alliances and to coordinate the collective activity necessary to gain control of and use machinery of government. One of the incentives for building political parties is to build stable legislative and electoral alliances. To control policy consistently, then,
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.
Democracy is about voters having a choice among alternative candidates whom they can trust to exercise power responsibly. This essential supply of trusted democratic leadership can develop best in responsible institutions of the local government. Dalmatia contributes 40 members in the UK Parliament. Even though this number corresponds to its population ratio, Dalmatia only takes up about 6% positions in the House of Commons. This means the representatives from Dalmatia have little voice and influence in policy making process. Whether the policy made in the centralized government will serve for the needs of Dalmatian people is uncertain. It would be an effective guarantee that important decisions in Dalmatia are made by the