For all the non-Canucks out there, here’s my brief overview of the Canadian political system, and if you are pro-democracy, tell me how this manages to work:
Executive Branch: The Queen of England, but she has a representative in Canada called the Governor General, who is appointed for a five-year term. This is a ceremonial position and I can’t think of a time where she vetoed or started any legislation.
Legislative Branch: We have a House of Commons and a Senate like the US. But our Senators are appointed by the House of Commons for a term until they’re 75. The last time they did anything was to veto a budget back in the 70’s.
Our members of Parliament (House of Commons) are elected directly by voters, but our Prime Minister isn’t. The PM is elected by members of his political party, with no actual input from the general public. I think we have 5 federal parties; the party with the most seats in the House gets to decide the PM. And that PM gets to decide the Governor General AND fill any vacant Senate seats.
We have a constitution very similar to the US constitution. But get this, we actually have a clause it in that says, and I paraphrase, a law can be passed that is completely unconstitutional, but it can only last 5 years, at that point it has to be voted on again (ie Quebec language laws).
So, in summary: We don’t elect our leader, and we have no term limits (except for senators who are kicked out at 75). Our leader is chosen by an elite group, which I haven’t been invited to join. We have a Supreme Court to declare things unconstitutional, but our constitution left the backdoor open. Our Senate and Queen are purely decorative.
Is this democracy? How is it that we seem to exist?
I don’t see any particular reason why this system WOULDN’T survive. If you boil off the cermonial irrelevancies like the monarch or the Senate, which could both vanish tomorrow without really changing anything, what you have is a country that’s governed by a House of Commons.
What about that system strikes you as being unstable? It’s a simple, straightforward concept; you elect a bunch of people who vote on making laws.
You can argue over the details, like whether or not we should have term limits - most countries don’t have term limits for elected representatives, so I dunno what the big deal is there - but why would it strike you as being unstable? It’s a popularly supported system, with historical roots going back centuries. Of course it’s survived.
Or are you really trying to start a debate about changing the government? If so, clarify what you want to debate.
However, I wanted to point out a major error in your assumptions:
Uh, no. The clause you refer to, the “Notwithstanding Clause,” can be used to pass a law that contravenes exactly ten clauses in the entire Constitution - specifically, clauses 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. None of the other dozens and dozens of clauses in the Constitution - there are more than 100 in all - are subject to the “Notwithstanding Clause.” To use an important example, a province could not pass a law denying you the right to vote.
And of course, if a law is passed in this matter, it’s not “unconstitutional.”
Seems to me the Canadian system survives, easily, for lack of external pressure. I don’t think Canada has faced a real crisis, something that might threaten revolution or invasion or internal collapse, since the end of the War of 1812. The one exception being the chronic, intractable problem of Quebec’s existence as a non-English-speaking member of the federation. And the Quebeckers are, mostly, either comfortable with the situation, or not uncomfortable enough to consider the kind of tactics you see in Ireland or Palestine. So Canada endures. Why wouldn’t it?
Sure. Canada is peaceful, prosperous, protective of rights, encouraging of enterprise, essentially everything significant that a citizenry could want from a government.
So what exactly is the problem you want to solve, emacknight? You’ve described a structure that strongly resists major changes in a government where major changes should be strongly resisted.
This Yank is more struck by the strength of the provincial and regional separatist attitudes up there, outside Ontario at least, where the value and effectiveness of the federal government seems to be constantly denigrated reflexively and ritualistically instead of clearly thoughtfully. I know that’s not necessarily the general view, but it does seem far more widespread and even respectable than would be the case in the US.
It is a system which is very similar to the British one. Britain is one of the oldest surviving democracies in the world. Why would you think that system is unstable?
By unstable, I was referring out our lack of checks and balances. Compare with the US system, there is a President, House, and Senate. Each with a certain amount of power, and each with the ability to veto certain things. Should the President abuse his power by bringing forth some hugely unpopular legislation, there are two other elected bodies to slow it down. Canada lacks that control structure (making it unstable).
But despite all this the system some how works. From what I can tell we haven’t had a huge abuse of power. And the abuses we have had weren’t enough to upset the political balance. A lot of this stems from [lander2k2’s]](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182201) rant. For lack of a better word, shat keeps this system honest?
I wondered about this too. Can you tell me how the Lords get into the House of Lords? Do they have any political powers? But you’re right, the British system is almost identical, I think Australia is the same too. But is it right to say “oldest surviving democracy?” When did the monarcy lose power to the House? The UK still has the same problem as Canada though, if Blaire does something that’s unpopular there’s no balance.
That’s right, its perfect, its everything you could want in a democracy, but HOW. This bumble bee shouldn’t fly. If it could work here, could it work any where else?
I don’t really want anything to change. Personally I think I’d go nuts if I had to listen to all 105 Senators weigh in with their 2cents. And have an election every two years. Oh, did I mention that our PM can call an election when ever he wants, within a 5 year period?
You’re right, emacknight. The U.S. system has an extraordinary number of checks and balances compared to the British system and systems modeled on it, such as Canada’s. Yet there seems to be relatively little abuse of power in the other English-speaking countries . . . perhaps someone cares to disagree on that point? If true, then maybe the implication is that we Americans have more checks and balances than we actually need! Right now I’ve got a GD thread going: “Should the United States Senate be abolished?” I think it should be.
Well no, there is abuse within the British/Canadian style systems too. Canadian political abuses don’t make much news outside of Canada for the same reason pebbles make smaller waves than boulders.
The parliamentary systems have grown over time and have achieved a certain degree of tradition that makes it difficult for those that hold political office to flout those powers. Tradition is a poor check to power as it can be quickly overturned or used as a rhetorical device (these old things are holding us back).
Basically it’s an organic political system that grows and adapts to whatever situation it finds itself in. I prefer it to the American notion of political system springing out of someone’s head. Then again, we’ve gone and grown that aspect into our system through the Charter. The wrangling going on now about judge made law is a sign of how we’re incorporating that idea into the landscape.
Well, obviously, it DOESN’T make it unstable, since Canada is in fact a very stable country with a very stable government. The Canadian system of government is one of the oldest continually operating systems in the world. So obviously your initial assumption - that it’s unstable - is factually incorrect.
I think you are making two errors of assumption:
Who says checks and balances are what makes a government stable? You can create all the fancy checks and balances you want, but your government can still fall apart. Bolivia has brought in SCORES of Constitutions with checks and balances, and all of them have failed. A government derives its stability largely from its legitimacy and its effectiveness. A governmental system that the citizenry perceives to be legitimate and effective will be a stable one. The world’s most ideally written Constitution means absolutely jack squat if it’s given no legitimacy or standing in anyone’s eyes. On the other hand, an almost totally unwritten Consitution can work if the citizenry firmly believes in its value - as is the case in the United Kingdom.
What on earth makes you think Canada doesn’t have checks and balances? Canada has a DIFFERENT set of checks and balances than the U.S., but they’re there all the same. The courts have considerable power to check the power of Parliament - many, many laws have been struck down by our courts. The federal government and the provincial governments all check each other’s power. The common law is a very strong check and balance on legal and governmental excess. There’s nothing that says all your checks and balances have to be within the legislative branch.
You’re operating here on the assumption that a “check or balance” must be something written in to the Constitution that allows Person A to stop Person B from doing something. Well, Canada DOES HAVE THAT - geez Louise, have you READ our Constitution? 70% of it is dedicated to checking and balancing the federal government vs. the provinces. Plus, you have the power of the judicial branch vs. the power of the legislative branch, a very significant check and balance. But you also have the unofficial but very powerful checks and balances that the common law and the Westminster system bring to the table. You’ve ALSO got the most powerful check and balance of them all - elections.
No, being stable now doesn’t make my statement wrong. If you remove the steering wheel from your car, it will be very stable until you need to turn. That’s what I’m worried about here. As BrainGlutton pointed out, one reason could be that Canada has not faced external pressure, our system might be stable now, but can it respond to problems in the near future? I don’t want Canada to go the way of Bolivia, and for that reason I think its fair to be concerned with the future of our political system.
So from your post, can I summarize that Canada uses a 1.) division of power between federal and provincial bodies (set out in sections 91, 92, and 93 yes I have read some of it); and 2.) common law/judicial controls? I find it scary to think that our system is based on * legitimacy and effectiveness*, personally I’d like something a little more concrete.
Before I’m further scolded: I’ve spent years studying controls engineering (as opposed to constitutional law), and stability is our major concern. Not all systems are stable, and some systems can never be made stable despite how many control features you build in. Likewise, an apparently stable system can go horribly wrong, if you only look and a narrow operating region. To say “this system is always stable because it’s stable now” is dangerous. And this is probably case in point why engineers are kept out of politics.
So what higher check on a representative democracy would you have?
Laws? Well laws exist only so far as they are respected. There was a thread about what if Bush seizes power next election, with the majority of replies (aside from “head to the hills with the guns” jokes died down) was that the proclamation would be ridiculed and the man taken down.
The Canadian system works and self corrects thanks to public expectations of what a government should provide a free people. It relies on tradition and memory as foundations for what is and is not acceptable. I.e. PM “asks” a crown corp for a loan. No longer acceptable and now a public check on future/current PMs.
As for BrianGlutton’s assertion that Canada has faced no external threats since 1812, well I suggest a review of … The impact if US civil war leading to the BNA, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, Korea, Cold War, Oil crisis, War on Terrorism. The assumption being that external pressures are greater than internal. I would argue otherwise. The Riel rebellion, the dust bowl, the Winnipeg general strike, the Conscription debacle, and of course, Quebec separatism which has likely done more to form Canadian federalism than anything else I can think.
I don’t mean to be overly pessimistic, but if you consider the events leading up to Hitler’s dominance of Germany, it happened gradually, from a democratic process. I think it’s an important academic exercise to take an introspective look at our political system and identify cracks, ensuring we don’t go the way of Bolivia and Germany, and any other failed democracy. I think its also an important exercise to ask how a particular democracy can function, despite glaring pitfalls, so that some of these principles can be applied to the dozens of dictators that will be toppled in the next ten years. The transition from tyranny to anarchy to democracy is tough, and lately I get the feeling no one has any idea how to keep the democracy.
Personally, I think term limits are by far the most important feature of a democracy, above all else. Bush will be out in 2008, no matter what. If he tried to stay, tried to seize control, the 83% of the population that didn’t vote for him would be up in arms (some of them quite literally). And I think the debate would end there.
The quote I’ve always loved is: “Democracy is not how you elect your leaders, its how you dispose of them.” Does anyone know who said that?
So would it be fair to say that your concern isn’t with its current stability but with the potential for its loss due to complacency? Or perhaps would a better word for what you’re decrying be “stagnation”, rather than “stability”?
emacknight, Hitler’s kind of a silly comparison. Never heard of Godwin, huh? Hitler took power over a system than had existed for, by my count, exactly 13 years, in extreme circumstances, over a government that frankly had absolutely none of the democratic tradition or public confidence that ours has. It’s simply not a valid parallel. It also doesn’t really say anything about CANADA in particular - why not conclude the U.S. system could do the same thing, nstead of Canada? The Weimar Republic had plenty of checks and balances. They didn’t help, because of the lack of legitimacy and effectiveness.
If term limits are the most important part of a demcoracy, why is it that there are so few democracies with term limits? The U.S. doesn’t have term limits for Congressmen or Senators, or state reps, or Supreme Court justices. The U.S. did just fine without term limits for Presidents for about 160 years, too. Really, term limits are just a minor detail - I don’t understand why you’d come to such a bizarre conclusion. Are you really saying that term limits, which are used very little in modern democracy, are more important to demcoracy than the rule of law, public support of the government, and universal suffrage? Many democracies function without term limits, but NO democracies function without rules of law, public legitimacy and confidence, and elections.
Look, it’s really simple - when it comes right down to it, a government governs in stability because the people are willing to let it. All the written checks and balances in the world are meaningless if the populace of a country doesn’t recognize it as valid. You could write a new Constitution for Canada tomorrow, and it could be the best designed Constitution ever written, but since nobody would recognize it as legitimate, it wouldn’t work, would it?
It’s a poor comparison between a system that has been stable and progressively more democratic for more than 150 years (more if you include the UK’s experience) and the 20 odd years of democratic government in Germany between world wars. THIS is where the progressive layers of expectation and tradition come into play. It also helps to have a large middle class owning property expecting the government to provide protection of that wealth.
You examples make the point that the imposition of a system without the pre-existing traditions and institutions (dampers) will not provide a stable government. I.e. if there is no previous experience with liberty, peaceful transfers of power and public protest the sudden imposition of such a system tends to catastrophically fail.
I agree with many of the above responses. I’d like to add one point, though. emacs notes in posts subsequent to the OP that “The UK still has the same problem as Canada though, if Blaire [sic] does something that’s unpopular there’s no balance,” and “But despite all this the system some how works. From what I can tell we haven’t had a huge abuse of power.”
It’s really quite simple, and a single observation can explain why one rarely sees abuses of power. It’s because there is a balance to the power of the PMO.
Once upon a time, a man, fondly remembered by all, led the Progressive Conservatives to stunning consecutive majority victories. He thought himself invincible, and began to assume that there was no balance on his power - that he could do whatever he wanted. And, while Uncle Brian got out while the getting was good, his party won two - count 'em, two - seats out of three hundred and however many there were in the House at that time in the subsequent election. That is a very potent check on the power of the government. Politicians don’t like leaving behind that sort of legacy.
Sadly, with the fracturing of the opposition into regionally-based parties, that check has been largely lacking on the Liberals. In fact, I think Chretien is still in power almost solely because Mulroney destroyed the PC’s, in large part by losing Albertan small-c conservatives to Reform. While I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I would dearly like to see the right get its act together and provide a credible opposition to the Liberals, to keep them honest if nothing else.
To say that any western democracy has “no balance” of power is a bit of hyperbole. For examples of true lack of balance you have to look at the former Iraq, Libya, North Korea, China. It is certainly a concern about whether western nations could drift into similar regimes, but really – there’s no comparison. It’s important to use language accurately.
You seem to have a belief that the American system is more democratic, and therefore more stable. I’m wondering: how many Canadians have died in civil war; how many Canadian leaders have been assassinated; how many race riots in Canadian history; how many militia groups exist; how many federal buildings blown up by domestic terrorism; how many McCarthy style inquisitions; was there ever the equivalent of a J. Edgar Hoover; any Watergates.
If your concern is balance of power, what’s the ratio of women to men in politics these days?
What exactly does “ratio of women to men” have to do with anything?
The other points you mentioned really weren’t a failure of legislation.
RickJay, you are right that elections provide a good check, but I think the timing is wrong. 5 years is too long to suffer through bad legislation. And as Gorsnak pointed out, in order for elections to help, there needs to be an opposition to vote for. This is the state (my opinion) that the US and Canada are in, who’s running against Bush, and who is running against Martin? I think in a democracy we have to look past elections as our only check.
The other points mentioned were “tradition” and a perception of “legitimacy.” So here it is, this post is case and point that I fail to see the legitimacy of our system. As for tradition, that is something that I feel dies a little with each generation. There may have been a time where the system worked the way it was supposed to. Then everyone was willing to accept it, it continued to work, so no one noticed that two of our key players (senate and Queen) stopped participating. If me (an my generation) start to pick up on this, the next generation can only be worse (possibly pessimistic).
I apologize for the term “abuse of power.” So here’s my rant: our system works, but I don’t see this lasting. As it stands we’ve lost what was supposed to be the checks, ie Senate and Queen, but the system continues to work, so fine. Our fall back is the elections, and that’s fine, but we’ve lost an effective opposition, and with them our final check. If the government starts pushing and unpopular mandate, a few bad laws goes though, and people like me get pissed. Bango, we’ve lost legitimacy, effectiveness, and tradition. The system only works as long as believe in it, are you confident they will for much longer?