We live in an age where technology is at the forefront of our lives. Everything we say or do is publicized in social media or on TV, especially for people in the public eye. We see role models defaming themselves because of the need to “have a life,” when really they gave up that right when they chose their career. I believe there is a clear-cut way for elected officials to act in public and it is not like Rob Ford. As a politician you are a representative of the people. Adults of the specified area vote for whom they believe will do the best job. With that kind of responsibility on their hands they do not have time to do their job properly and have a personal life in the public eye. We hear of politicians abusing their privilege, like the senate scandal. Having access to public money and spending it on things not related to helping the people. The people involved in the senate scandal used government money to pay for housing expenses and trips that were not necessary under their job description. Unfortunately because they are in the senate they were appointed not elected, meaning the Prime Minister hand selected the people that went on to steal from the Canadian people. Currently we have been hearing about Alison Redford spending tax dollars to take her daughter and friends on trips as well as to personal funerals. Yet we hear constant complaining about needing funding for different social programs like welfare, health care and schooling. When our premier is spending the needed money on nothing close to the cause. Acceptable behavior for elected officials is doing to job they are required to do, nothing more nothing less. They are where they are because they are good at what they do. They should be taking advantage of the... ... middle of paper ... ...icians looked at it as, would I allow my children to do this, maybe we would see a difference. We always have to remember that although we may not know them the decisions we make affect more than just ourselves. All in all what is classified as acceptable behavior for elected officials will continue to be debated as times change, different things will come about and change how we think about this issue. It also depends on whom you ask as well; different people have different opinions on this issue. I continue to believe that a strong leader who exemplifies acceptable behavior excels at their job, is reelected by their constituents and is looked up to by all people. There are always going to be people that hate on everyone because of jealousy, but if the majority is satisfied with their work and not embarrassed chances are they are showing acceptable behavior.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
Canada itself claims to be democratic, yet the Canadian Senate is appointed to office by the current Prime Minister rather than elected by the citizens. The original purpose of the Senate was to give fair representation between provinces and to the citizens. Having failed its purpose, clearly there are issues within the Senate that need to be addressed. Because of the Prime Minister appointing the Senators, they will now serve the Prime Ministers needs rather than the people who they should have been listening to. As if this were not enough of a show of power for the Prime Minister, the Senators cannot be lawfully kicked out of office until the age of seventy-five. An example of Senate idiosyncrasy in Canadian government is Ross Fitzpatrick, who was appointed to office by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien of the Liberals in June 1990. His official opponent, Preston Manning, rightfully questioned the circumstances regardin...
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.
As easy as actors put on clothes and become a different person to film a movie, successful politicians appear much more heartfelt and honest as they are in real life. This is backed by the idea posed by Chris Hedges that “political leaders…..no longer need to be competent, sincere, or honest. They need only to appear to have these qualities.” If a politician were able to appear honest and heartfelt in a campaign event, they would much more likely to appeal to the audience and be able to win their trust and vote in some cases and succeed in winning an election to the benefit of the politician and not the audience. . Similar, posed propaganda and social medias of today are often used to exploit the audience and give them poorly supported feelings of support and trust for these political leaders.
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.
nothing but making citizens' voices, opinions, and perspectives “present” in the public policy making processes (11). When political representatives not only speak but also advocate and champion the cause of the people, both symbolize and act on behalf of the vast majority of people in the political arena, political representation then occurs. In essence, political representation refers to kind of political assistance that the political representatives give to the people at large. This seemingly straightforward definition, however, is squarely not sufficient and inadequate because it leaves the concept of political representation underspecified and does not convey the full meaning of the term. The concept of political representation carries
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
“Therefore the primary duty of public servants is to act as guardians and guarantors of the regime values for the American public” (Frederickson, 205). Frederickson viewed those in public servitude as the great ambassadors and representation of the American Government system. When one thinks of such a character we perhaps think about our Founding Fathers or Jimmy Stewart’s character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Earlier, I pointed out that the public had the ability to voice and relay their opinions on their public officials, especially if they are not pleased with them. Each individual holds certain morals to themselves and certain values are treasured to them, because they are ones they learned through their experiences.
-their parents may die and get sick before the children are mature enough to deal with it
One question that many politicians ask now in our time, why citizens do not take more interest in politics and public policy? A question that is not asked very often until something major occur that will effect us as an individual. As an uprising politician of the community and as a youth leader, I find already that it will be very difficult to grasp the attention of the people when it comes to politics. From all of the news media outlets, to magazines and newspapers, politics has been pulled into a bubble of being a bad thing. Most of the time you often hear when politics is discussed, its dirty, they are all liars and they do whatever they want so why do we get involved?
...e office to express their views on issues took an active role in their rights as citizens in a representative democracy. Politicians are concerned with the good of the state, and a consensus on proper laws and legislation are carried out in the State Assembly. Democracy permits people to choose representatives that will best serve their interests in public affairs. Every citizen has an equal share of representation in government. The constituents I met and talked with during my internship experience have freedoms that are purely democratic, including the freedom to vote, the freedom to elect individuals that will serve their needs, the freedom to own property, and the freedom to express their views to the representatives who are responsible to their county or district.
Politicians are expected to speak on a wide variety of issues. Furthermore, they are expected to have a deep understanding of each and
Although the potential duality within the life of a government official is grounds for the tolerance of most immoral actions, a code of conduct for elected government officials should still be executed. The dual lives only justify there being no obligation for elected officials to live a morally exemplary life in private; it does not justify the allowance of unethical lives with regards to the elected government offices. As long as the code of conduct revolves around the ethics of the professional life and excludes most immoral actions of the private life, the code should be upheld.