Now despite my pessimism I would like to point out one glaring advantage the Canadian/British system has over the US—Question Period. The POTUS relies IMO too heavily on his press secretary to shield the questions. The President really never has to stand up and take criticism (when its patriotic to). Can you imagine if Bush, after his state of the Union address, had to field questions from the 49% Dems? How long would he last? How long would any President last?
Well, maybe 4 years is better or maybe 5 years is better, but you’re now a very long way from your own OP. Surely you do not believe the difference between 4 and 5 years (and most elections are 4 years apart, not 5) reduces the STABILITY of Canada’s government?
Great gosh almighty, people have short memories.
Anyone who thinks the Republicans and Liberals are somehow immune from opposition will, sooner or later, be presented with an extraordinarily rude shock. I remember a President named Bush who won a war around the middle of his term and who was considered absolutely, unquestionably unbeatable, no doubt about it. His popularity rating hit 90%. It was a running late night TV joke about the hopeless Democrats and how they would be stomped in the 1992 presidential race. And they ran this yokel from Arkansas. And guess what.
And frankly, as to the Liberal Party, they have been in power for ten years - about two and a half terms. Big frickin’ deal. We still hold elections. Had the Reform Party not gone through the fiasco of changing its name for no reason and selecting as their representative the least intelligent, least educated, and most out-and-out stupid person to ever be the leader of a major federal party in all of Canadian history, it’s almost certain we’d have a minority government. You cannot tell me that the opposition blowing an election because they had stupid strategists is a criticism of the STRUCTURE of our government, can you? If you want free elections you have to be prepared for parties to sometimes really shank an election.
Uhh…
I think you misunderstand what “legitimacy” means. You MUST misunderstand it. If you really don’t see the legitimacy in our system, then what you are saying is that you don’t really think Jean Chretien is the Prime Minister, and you think Queen Elizabeth II is not really the Head of State, and you think the Supreme Court does not actually rule on laws. “Legitimacy” doesn’t mean everything thinks the government is perfect; it means everyone thinks the government IS THE GOVERNMENT. I would assume that you will admit that 99% of all sane adult Canadians really do think that the current body of government we have is the real, honest-to-God government of this country, whether or not they happen to agree with it, and do not think the real Prime Minister is actually Cynthia Dale or someone.
This is only true if you assume that the entire history of Canada came to a halt in the last nine years. I personally think it’s utterly crazy to assume that because Party A has a three-game winning streak going that they will never lose again. You simply cannot predict that with even the tiniest bit of confidence.
Yes. It’s a stable system. It will work for decades to come. I’d bet money on it.
If people get sufficiently pissed off, the Liberals will lose the election. No big loss.
Oh and one point. Who here (Canadians) didn’t know who the future PM was going to be in the last election? That’s hardly an unknown, and in my opinion removes the whole secret elite cabal selecting the PM argument.
RickJay, you highlighted the problems of legitimacy quite clearly. Who/what is our executive branch? No one! They could appoint a monkey and have the same result. I don’t recognize the Queen or Clarkson has having any authority. Or in your words, I don’t think they are the government. I don’t recognize the guys sitting in the Senate as being Senators because in the same manner as the Queen, they don’t do anything. So right there we’ve lost two of the four components of our system. Well, to avoid the obvious argument, the Senate did put together a well-written report on marijuana. The third point you made was our PM. Sure Chretien is our PM for now, but who’s our next PM? There goes the third piece of legitimacy. Even the media has started moving reporters over to Martin’s office to get his take on everything. It’s worse than a lame duck situation because at least in US sense someone else has been elected. We have lame duck for another 6 months.
As for elections, the amount of time is irrelevant. You used elections has your final check and that’s good, I agree. But that’s still 3-5 years of a really shitty law in place and now one capable of preventing it. I think the Gun Registration* is a good example. And I can say that with a certain about of objectivity since I don’t own a gun and don’t care either way. But that bill really shouldn’t have gone through, and the additional money shouldn’t have been granted. This isn’t even my opinion, and I respect that some people agree with the bill. But this case highlights how a hugely unpopular bill was tabled after short debate, then the extra money for it was tabled with even less debate.
*Please don’t debate the Gun Registry, attack the process, I just needed an example.
Ditto the Uk. The Conservatives made themselves so unpopular Labour had their biggest win ever in 1997, and after 2 elections they still are doing appalingly bad in the polls.
One thing i do think would be a good idea is term limits for the Pm. It seems after 6 years in office, Blair now , and earlier Thatcher they seem to lose touch with reality and become increasingly messianic,
Then don’t vote for them, or agitate within your/their party to have them replaced. The idea that competent people should be kick out beacause they happen to be competent strikes me as odd.
And way off the OP but I’m trying to reach 300. 
Excuse me?
Who’s the next President of the United States? Unless you have ESP, you don’t know. Well, there goes that legitimacy!
Again, I simply don’t think you realize what legitimacy means. It doesn’t mean you LIKE the way the government is set up. It means you think the government is actually the government. Is there another, more legitimate government of Canada in exile somewhere? Is Canada in a state of anarchy?
That’s a legitimate criticism. But…
It has absolutely nothing to do with the stability or the legitimacy of the government!
You’re telling me the system is FLAWED, which I absolutely agree with. What you are not presenting is any evidence the system is UNSTABLE. Unstable does not equal flawed. There are many flawed governmental systems that are very stable. I could rattle off 15 bad things about the way the American government is structured, but it’s still a stable and legitimate system. Heck, you can find significant flaws in the system used by ANY stable democracy.
I agree, 100%. Now explain to me how this makes the system of government unstable. You are using evidence from a debate you didn’t start (that the government is flawed) to try to support the debate you did start (that the government is unstable.) Those simply are not the same topic. The Canadian system of governance is obviously very stable, and it is obviously quite flawed - hell, I don’t even think you’ve mentioned the worst problems yet.
We had a pretty detailed thread last month on how we felt the Canadian government should be restructured. I invite you to bump that thread with your suggestions, because it was a good debate and it would be cool to continue it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177436&highlight=canada+senate The “what the hell do we do with this Canadian Government” thread.
Big difference though, there will be a general election, and a change of power. In our case, we’ve had our election, had a PM, and then at an arbitrary point that PM will change, but the party will remain. We have the potential to vote in a party without knowing who will run it.
Okay, back to the stability issue. I believe that a (any) government is unstable, hence there are controls. I think checks and balances are controls, you mentioned legitamacy and effeectiveness. All are valid, all provide some measure of control that keeps one guy and his cronies from taking over and exterminating a specific ethnic group.
I disagree that we have any of those controls left, and at the present time we’re coasting along on tradition, complacency, and status quo.
But it could just be that I’m looking too narrowly and “now” when its entirely possible this little mess will settle itself out. Except that right there was my original question, our system will probably correct itself and continue functioning, but how?
Here’s my engineering take on it. You want your room to be 22 deg. but your only options are to turn on the heat full blast for 5 hours or turn on the AC for 5 hours. This case would alternate betwen too hot and too cold but ultimately average out to 22 so no one really complains, they just assume it will switch over soon. That is our I view the ‘elections’ side of control, things get bad to you switch the direction that ‘bad’ takes.
Unstable would be if the AC didn’t work, removing that option. But you can’t just leave off the heat, so the temp goes up for another 5 hours, now people complain. Turning on the AC doesn’t correct the problem, people are still pissed so they put on the heat. You’ve moved beyond the range that your control system can function–and that is unstable, and people leave the room.
This is a huge exageration to our system. But for my version there needs to be more than one or the other; something else built in to say “no, this is too hot/cold mellow out a little.”
The end point is, if the PM (any PM) makes a bad decision, what corrects him. As it stands, incompetence by one PM tends to give too much power to the next PM which would ultimately pull hard the other way.
I think that you’re looking at it the wrong way, emacknight. You’re viewing a plethora of checks and balances as a stabilizing element; I would argue the opposite. In the U.S., politics involves far more horse-trading than it does in Canada, because there’s so many more parties to satisfy. In the U.S., there’s also a strong tendency for legislation to over-correct for perceived deficiencies in the last swing of the pendulum. As an engineer, that over-correction should be a danger signal to you.
The question isn’t “why isn’t Canada unstable”; the question is “why isn’t the U.S. more unstable than it already is?”
Sure you can have a new minister in charge in the middle of a term… such as Ernie here in Ontario, but that usually lasts a short while. It is not unstable, though. I have not seen a collapse of our system because of this.
On the other hand No Party in their right mind would run an election if there was doubt whether the Party leader was going to remain. Usually they want to get that person into the lime light for a while and then run. There will be no Federal election until after a new successor to Chrétien has been chosen.
No we don’t vote who the leader is but guess what… most Canadian voters base their votes on two things… The Party and who happens to be the party leader. If they dislike a particular leader they are unlikely to vote for that party.
Many MPs get the votes not for their own personal platforms but who they are associated with. The only exception are those members who hold high profile portfolios.
Sue it is flawed in that we should hold an election once a leader steps down so as to vote for the leader we want, but there is a few questions this raises. Should that law only apply to just the ruling party? Do we hold an election when say the opposition changes leadership?
You want instability go ahead and try that one on for size.
As for any government being unstable… I’m not sure where you get this from? Are you saying only applying more rules will the public see legitimacy? Sounds like something that may bog a government down even more.
I have to ask right now where is this instability? Are there any people crying out that the system is falling part? They may be saying that certain laws and institutions need tweaking but I hear no one seriously demanding a complete overhaul of the system.
As to your last point… A PMs bad decision has many ways of correcting it.
- The Supreme court finds the law is unconstitutional the law is overturned.
- The voting public turns on the leader in the next election. The next party changes or amends the laws.
- The Governor General, on behalf of the Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II) has the prerogative to dissolve parliament and call for elections should Her Royal Majesty deem it necessary
- And more powerful is a vote of non confidence. True many MPs vote with the party whips but if your theoretical PM is so out of control all it takes is one piece of legislation to fail and Parliament dissolves and we go to option 2.
- The party decides that enough is enough and forces the leader out (Diefenbaker was one such example)
Now because Monsieur Chrétien hasn’t had this happen to him doesn’t mean the system is unstable.
Okay, as an engineer, here’s one adjustment that I want:
I need the senate to change, I know evey one says this, but my view is slightly different. I read a long time ago that the senate worked as a damper. Each term, a PM would elect senators that he liked, and normally that made his senate conform to his government. A Liberal PM nominated Liberal senators making the senate Liberal dominant. But when the Tories got in, the senate was Liberal, so they had to fight a bit more. They couldn’t go passing blatently concervative bills because the senate kept them in check.
Eventually the Tory PM would nominate a few PC senators and things would start to work in his favour. The political environment would be very conservative as an election approached. If people weren’t happy, they’d vote Liberal and the cycle would repeat. In each case, change was restricted just slightly by the previous government. Its that restriction that we need. Something to let the pendulum swing without picking up too much speed.
I’m just not convinced a senate can function without being elected. So if this happens I want the senate elections out of phase with the gerneral elections, but about 2 years. This works in the same fashion as above. If people are happy with Liberal policies they’ll strengthen the PM with a Liberal senate. On the other hand, if the public is pissed, they’ll elect a very concervative senate there by restricting the PM’s power.
Now, instead of drastically going for elected senate (a change that would be hard) what if we got more nominations more often. Instead of letting them hang out until the ripe old age of 75, make it 65, or 55, or some sort of “you can hang out for 12 years.” Anything as long as there is more turn over than there is now.
My take on politics is that every country desires to be close to the centre of the political system. The US tends to be very conservative, Canad tends to be very sociallist. So we have liberal parties and conservative parties. When each is in power they pull things a little towards there side. But they should NEVER be allowed to pull too hard.
Imagine if Ralph Clein was elected PM and he tried to abolish medicare, what would stop him? Other than out right revolt by the public the answer is sadly nothing. That move is too concervative for the general public.
But now, if he did that early in the term, the Senate (no matter how conservative) would see an election coming and never go for it. Likewise if it was a liberal senate they’d destroy it, win a sland slide of seats and make Ralph’s life hell.
That is the small amount of control I’d feel happier having. You’d be amazed how a little damping can improve a system’s stability.
The other change I want is a better definition of Deputy Prime Minister. I’d like this to follow the American system such that the party elects a PM and a deputy. If the PM (or Premier) quits, the deputy steps in until the next election. Before that election, as is the practice now, a new party leader and his deputy would be elected by the party, and take the ropes for the next election. The point is to instill some continuity.
In other words, how would the system change if the parties refused to tell you who their leader was until after the election? I know its rare, but that’s how I view our system; its like bait and switch. Very Jackel and Hydde like. I guess what is boils down to is that there are MPs right now that I WOULD NOT want as a PM, and if they were running I would sign up to make sure the other party won. I’d be pissed to find that the PM I liked and voted for quit two days into it so that the gimp MP could take over.
Look you’re confusing legislative acts you don’t like with an unstable system of government. They aint the same thing.
An unstable system of government implies that it is continually changing. Representative democracy one year, collapsing into anarchy moving to communism overthrown into an oligarchy flipping over into popular democracy etc etc etc. To answer your original OP the leafs have a better chance of winning the cup than this happening to the Canadian system.
Now your concern seems to be that policy can be set by a single person (i.e. PM) to the complete disregard of both the PM’s party, the rest of the legislature, the provinces, the courts and ultimately the public. My answer (aside from reforms I’d like to see) is so what? How on earth is the PM going to run roughshod over the groups I’ve mentioned above? The lack of regional representation within the current government has been balanced by the emergence of provincial level counter currents. Spontaneously.
Your idea of a stable democratic government is a fiction. There is a region of stability where the system can wander. Events far outside what we’ve experienced would be needed to move it out of its “well of stability” down the slope to anarchy.
There is a control you’re not mentioning, emacknight: the no-confidence vote. If a PM decided to do something radically different from the party platform, the party can withdraw its support, and the next day the PM loses a vote of no confidence. Ralph Klein couldn’t cancel medicare without the support of his party; and if his party tried something like that, the opposition filibusters while a public brouhaha swells, and Klein’s party, facing utter destruction in the next election, publicly backs off.
You are raising very hypothetical and unusual situations and arguing for a new system of government, which seems very unrealistic and unnecessary. Ralph Klein being elected PM and abolishing medicare? Get real. The opposition would be powerful – dissident MPs, citizen’s groups, the opposition parties, the press, radio, television. Imagine the headlines.
I’m also confused about why you think the system is both unstable and “coasting along on tradition, complacency, and status quo.” The latter sounds very stable indeed. In fact, after reading your arguments I’m actually more convinced of the system’s stability than before.
You then say you want more continuity, but at the same time dislike having the same PM in office for many years. Again, the latter is evidence of stability.
You’re contradicting yourself all over the place.
NOOOOOOOOO Just because Ralph Klein isn’t about to be PM, and Medicare isn’t about to be abolished does not discount the entire premise here FOCUS.
I said that because there was talk recently of Klein running for one of the federal conservative parties, and he has been pushing hard for private/public health care hybrids.
Asking for continuity is not contradictory to term limits. I could set a 2 term limit AND ask that the PM not jump ship half way through leaving the party to scramble threw the junk drawer looking for some duct tape. Even without the term limits, if the PM passed away tonight, I’d hope that some one would be ready to fill in, and I would prefer that it wasn’t a nominated position the way the current deputy is.
I will give you credit for pointing out that our current media system acts extremely well as a check, quite possibly better than our dwindling opposition parties. I am amazed ever day that our state sponsored television/radio is able to criticize our government to the extent that it does. And I have to admit that as I criticize I too realize how stable our system is, for now.
But it doesn’t have to be “abolishing medicare.” Not all cases of instability happen catastrophically. It can start with simple things like cuts to medicare that are poorly chosen or improperly applied. I’m not convinced that all MPs in the backbench are adequately informed, they’re just told to vote, and too often they do, hence they are not a sufficient check. We have no option for sober second thought. Just off the top of my head we have mismanaged fisheries, we have that Gun Registration, Blaire pushed through that war issue. In each case the backbenchers hollered and no one listened.
Elections only help us AFTER they screw up. All I’m asking for is something to help us before. The vote of non-confidence is good, its there, but it really only works for a minority government. And its also overkill, some times dissolving the house isn’t quite necessary.
So you worry those legislative actions that you don’t happen to agree with could lead to Canadian representative democracy becoming a tyranny.
Does that sum up your concerns, because if it doesn’t then I have no idea what you’re going on about.
I also fail to see how legislation that you (or even a majority of the population) don’t agree with will make the government unstable. It’s a natural problem with representative democracy that the government can do things that the populace don’t like.
Please say how you think the Canadian government could turn itself into an authoritarian state.
It has to a loss in legitamacy. If the population sees the government passing laws they don’t agree with, AND THEN are faced with a pathetic alternative for elections, voter turn out drops below a reasonable level. Democracy only works as long as the majority allows it. After that, I don’t know what happens. The transition from democracy to tyrany is not instantaneous.
All I’m asking is that we look at our fragile system, shake it a bit, and make damn sure it will last.
Another point my friend made was that our population density is low. We don’t have a strugle for land, or water, or power, the way other countries have. But its coming, are you prepared?