Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on Democracy deficit in canada
The evolution of canadian government
Canada's democracy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on Democracy deficit in canada
Canada’s system of government originated largely from the British model, with varied franchise, political parties, and responsible government as a constitutional monarchy. Early on there was a conservative approach to government and politics, although democracy was clearly lacking. Fast forward to modern Canada, where franchise has been opened to all citizens regardless of race, gender and sex and yet a true picture of democracy is often lacking amongst society. This paper will argue that Canada is a democracy, though it is often compromised in practice by exploring its parameters and problematic elements.
Democracy in practice is a hybridized system that combines elements of democratizing reform with anti-democratic ideals (Nurse 02/17/2014) by our standards today, as it was not operative at the time of confederation (Nurse 03/03/2014). It is a franchise of limited expansion, since the political power is vested in parties. These parties, if in power and good faith, can make decisions based on the opinion of the people they represent or they can take things into their own hands and make decisions based on over arching party politics. Political leaders can then engage in a patron-clientele system where people are appointed to do favors for those appointing them. If done correctly, it is a means to funnel local and regional views into central government (Nurse 01/13/2014). Some scholars pinpoint democracy as the highest socially accountable form of government, where “citizens participate in the process of creating legislation and policy, and freely agree to conform to them and share moral consequences” (Shoughi 3), and yet it can be argued that a wide percentage of citizens are unengaged and consequently negatively impact this “pe...
... middle of paper ...
...Canadians should have, as outlined in the charter of rights, these principles are still often challenged in practice. While a sense of public dislike for democracy is common in the media, its goals through public policy do not often reflect personal or group desires outside of those who implemented them.
Canada is a democracy and yet, it can be argued that it is compromised in practice. This essay has illustrated a select number of parameters and problematic elements of democracy in an effort to address the reality that large portions of the country’s citizens frequently challenge their democracy. Even through the simple act of not voting, or maintaining a basic knowledge of political happenings it tests the long-term visibility of the nation. How can good democratic practice take place when the number of participants continues to dwindle with every passing year?
Quebec’s social identity and defining characteristics contradict and conflict with those of rest of Canada. Since the genesis of our country, the political, social disagreements, and tensions between Quebec and the rest of Canada have been unavoidable. Utilizing Hiller’s key contradictions in the analysis of a Canadian society, we will compare and contrast the nature of the societal identity in Quebec compared to that of rest of Canada, emphasising on the major differences and tensions between the province and the rest of the country.
"Bill of Rights (Canada), August 4, 1960." DISCovering World History. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Canada in Context. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
In conclusion, Canada is held strong with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As citizens know their rights and freedoms they can help change the shape of Canada by Charter Challenges. Changes move
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
...I truly think that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has paved a path for creating a free and democratic Canada and I believe it will create Canada as the greatest democratic nation.
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.
Regionalism is a political ideology based on a collective sense of place or attachment, and is discussed in terms of Canadian society, culture, economy and politics (Westfall, 3). Canada is known internationally as a nation incorporating several multiregional interests and identities into its unification of culture. Its diverse population is comprised of numerous ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations and traditions; and all resides under one federal government. Ever since the founding of Canada, it has developed into regional cleavages and identities, based on various geographical topologies, lifestyles and economic interests (Westfall, 6). It is these characteristics which make it problematic for the federal government to represent all demands of its people on a national level. Regionalism is thus an issue within regards to political proficiency in the Federal government.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
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.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Many people across the globe argue that nationalism within Canada is simply not feasible. It is said that we as a people, differ so greatly with our diverse cultures, religions, and backgrounds that we cannot come together and exist together as a strong, united nation. In his book, Lament for a Nation, George Grant tells the reader that “…as Canadians we attempted a ridiculous task in trying to build a conservative nation in the age of progress, on a continent we share with the most dynamic nation on earth. The current history is against us.” (1965) Originally directed towards the Bomarc Missile Crisis, the book argues that whatever nationalism Canada had was destroyed by globalization as well as the powerful American sphere of influence. Although it is true that the book was initially written as a response to the events that took place in the late 1950s, many of the points are still valid today.
“ Canada 's national obsession seems to be its own identity.” For many years Canada has feared the increasing influence of its North American neighbors on its culture - the United States . It has become a matter of growing concern for the people of power and influence in Canada to maintain their separate cultural identity and to promote their own cultural norms. Gaetan Tremblay presents his views on this topic and does this from the perspective of a person living and working in Quebec.
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.
Since federalism was introduced as an aspect of Canadian political identity, the country has undergone multiple changes as to how federalism works; in other words, over the decades the federal and provincial governments have not always acted in the same way as they do now. Canada, for example, once experienced quasi-federalism, where the provinces are made subordinate to Ottawa. Currently we are in an era of what has been coined “collaborative federalism”. Essentially, as the title would suggest, it implies that the federal and provincial levels of government work together more closely to enact and make policy changes. Unfortunately, this era of collaborative federalism may be ending sooner rather than later – in the past couple decades, the federal and provincial governments have been known to squabble over any and all policy changes in sectors such as health, the environment and fiscal issues. Generally, one would assume that in a regime employing collaborative federalism there would be a certain amount of collaboration. Lately, it seems as though the only time policy changes can take place the federal government is needed to work unilaterally. One area in which collaborative federalism has been nonexistent and unilateral federalism has prevailed and positively affected policy changes is in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector.