The Establishment of Parliamentary Systems in Canada - Essay Example

? Canada is supposed to be a parliamentary system, but the judiciary and the executive exert undue power in contemporary Canadian politics. The establishment of parliamentary systems in countries worldwide aims to achieve the following target: to ensure that the rules of democracy will be adequately promoted. However, in practice, this is not the case. Often, interests related to individuals or to groups are involved in the governance of a country. The involvement in a country’s politics has been often opposite to the rules of democracy, a fact that is reflected to the reduction, even the elimination, of the power of parliament. This issue has also appeared in Canada. The country’s governance has structured in such way that all key decisions are taken by parliament; however, actions that are opposed to the country’s parliamentary system have not been avoided. At this point, the following dilemma has been set: should the power of the judiciary and the executive in Canada be controlled so that the power of the country’s parliamentary system to be adequately protected? It is argued that the limitation of the power of judiciary and executive in Canada would be quite necessary in order to ensure that democracy in the country is sufficiently promoted. The above argument is justified and appropriately backed by referring to the relevant literature. Particular emphasis is given on the power of parties and the judiciary to define the terms on which parliamentary decisions in Canada are based. In the study of Charlton and Barker emphasis is given on the potential limitation of the party discipline in Canada, so that the freedom of the members of the parliament to be increased. Reference is made to two, opposite, views. Kilgour, Kirsner and McConnell, note that party discipline in Canada should be reduced, or even eliminated, since it reduces the power of the members of the parliament to vote independently in regard to the issues brought to the parliament for discussion and verification. The party discipline, as applied in the parliamentary system of Canada, means that the members of the parliament have to align their vote with the decisions of their party (Charlton and Barker 2009, p.217), a rule that has caused strong oppositions by the members of the Canadian parliament. Kilgour has been a member of the Canadian parliament since 1979 (Charlton and Barker, 2009, p.217); in 1990 he voted against a bill of his party (Conservatives) in regard to the authorization of Goods and Services Tax (Charlton and Barker 2009, p.217). As a result of the above decision, ‘he was expelled by his party’ (Charlton and Barker 2009). Due to the above fact, he decided to join the Liberal Party (Charlton and Barker 2009). In 2005 he decided to continue his career as an independent member of the parliament, especially due to a claim for ‘governmental failures in using appropriately the funds related to a sponsorship program in Quebec’ (Charlton and Barker 2009, p.217). The case of Kilgour shows that party discipline, as currently applied in Canada, prohibits MPs to criticize the decisions of their parties, even if the indications for failures related to party initiatives are many. In other words, party discipline in Canada should be significantly reduced, only applied in certain cases, or, if possible, eliminated, allowing the development of opposing views within the parliament. In this way, the quality of democracy in the specific country would be improved (Kilgour, Kirsner and McConnell, in Charlton and Barker 2009, p.218). In any case, the problem would not be whether the Canadian parliamentary system would become similar with the American Parliamentary system, where the members of the Congress have increased power to state their view (Charlton and Barker 2009, p.218), or not; instead, emphasis should be given on the level of democracy in Canada, as reflected in the country’s parliamentary system. At the next level, the following issue should be highlighted: in each current form, the party discipline in Canada, has the following implication: any vote of a MP against his party is considered as ‘a non-confidence vote for the government’ (Kilgour, Kirsner and McConnell, in Charlton and Barker 2009, p.219); such case does not exist in other countries based on the parliamentary system, such as Britain and Germany (Kilgour, Kirsner and McConnell, in Charlton and Barker 2009, p.219). Therefore, the limitation, or, even, the elimination of party discipline as an aspect of the Canadian parliamentary system would be necessary for securing the stability of the country’s political system. Every time that a MP would state a view opposing to the thesis of his party, the power of the government would be threatened, affecting the country’s political system. Therefore, the party discipline in Canada should be reduced, as possible; in this way, democracy would be enhanced while the stability of the country’s political system would not be threatened, in the context described above. There is also the opposite view: Jackson (2007, in Charlton and Barker 2009, p.227) notes that if party discipline in Canada would be significantly relaxed, then the following problem would appear: ‘regional interests could be highly involved in parliamentary decisions’ (Charlton and Barker 2009, p.227). However, in this way, the validity and the effectiveness of parliamentary decisions would be decreased. Still, MPs represent primarily the interests of specific areas across Canada; their views are normally affected by these regions’ interests, without necessarily the country’s interests to be threatened. Under these terms, it is argued that the party discipline in Canada should be relaxed; in its current form it negatively affects the role of the country’s parliament, which has a critical value in securing democracy. At this point, the power of government, as the executive body, in Canada should be reviewed, in order to evaluate whether the current power of government in Canada in acting over its power is legitimate or not. According to Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn (2011) the government in Canada ‘is placed at the centre of the political life’ (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2011, p.5). Two are the key principles that most affect the political life of Canada: ‘authority, i.e. the right to exercise power, and legitimacy, the acceptance by people of the fact that those who are in positions of authority have the right to govern’ (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2011, p.5). This means that the country’s government, which is elected by the law, has the power to take political decisions in behalf of the citizens, without this activity to be considered as violating the interests of the public. Still, the above rules cannot lead to the assumption that the power given to the government is unlimited; in fact, the government has the power to act in the context of the Constitution and the laws. Also, the freedom of the governing party’s MPs to vote against their party’s will cannot be considered as an activity threatening the power of the government. Rather it is a reflection of democracy, especially since MPs are the representatives of people in specific regions across the country. As noted in the study of Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn (2011), the government of Canada ‘need to respect the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as adopted in 1982’ (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2011, p.12); this means that the excess of government’s powers would be opposed to the Constitution and cannot be tolerated. It is implied that the respect of the parliamentary system is also part of the obligations of the Canadian government. The high diversity of Canada, in terms of the culture of its population, is a challenge that the Canadian government has to face: many of the government’s decisions are likely to be opposed to the interests of certain cultural groups across Canada (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2011, p.12). Still, it is important that the decisions of the country’s government promote the national interests and not the interests of specific groups, because in that case a violation of the constitution would exist (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2011, p.12). The supporters of the view that the power of executive towards the parliament should remain at high levels use the above argument for justifying the promotion of party discipline, arguing that a relaxed party discipline allows MPs to promote the rights of interests of groups. The above view should be considered as non fully justified: the claim that the view of MPs is always similar to those of the interests of specific groups would lead to the assumption that MPs do not have the power to state their view, which is absolutely force. MPs have this power, and if it were reduced, this would harm democracy and not the interests of specific groups. The above view is verified through the following fact: the criteria of a good government, as highlighted in the study of Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn (2011), are the following: ‘accountability, transparency, participation and responsiveness’ (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn, 2011, p.18-19). There is no reference to obligation of the government to ensure that all its members have the same view on each issue that is brought before the parliament for discussion. Rather, it is revealed that government in Canada should secure the freedom of its members to participate in all political decisions; participation, as used above, is related to the freedom to vote independently. According to the issues discussed above, the power of the executive and the judiciary in Canada should be controlled; their involvement in parliamentary decisions should be controlled, so that the rules of democracy, on which the political system of Canada is based, are adequately protected. The views developed in the literature reveal that efforts are made for the limitation of the power of parliament in favor of the executive and the judiciary; these views have been evaluated and criticized at the level that they serve the need of members of the judiciary and the executive to secure their position, an effort which is against the constitution’s rules in regard to the distribution of power and authority among the three governing powers: the parliament, the executive and the judiciary. References Mark Charlton and Paul Barker. Contemporary Political Issues, 6th Edition. Scarborough: Nelson, 2009. Eric, Mintz, Livianna, Tossutti, and Christopher, Dunn. Democracy, Diversity and Good Government: An Introduction to Politics in Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education, 2011. Read More