Canadian Politic: Federalism - Essay Example

Canadian Politics Canadians generally feel that the solution to all their problems is federalism but at times the tenets of federalism are a source to all their problems. “Federalism contains within it both a powerful vision of community and the ingredients for tragedy”. Both these aspects are present in Canada. This is mainly because of the complexities of the Confederation Settlement that took place in Canada in the year 1867.1 Pondering over the issue of executive federalism in Canada the aim of the paper is to find out whether the move of the executive federalism of Canada towards the EU model will bring about any improvement in the structure of Canada. In spite of the fact that Canada has a dominance of political parties yet Canada has been labeled with the title of executive federalism emphasizing the importance of the Prime Minister and the First Ministers in the policy making of Canada.2 Smiley has characterized the Canadian government as “executive federalism”. This is because Canada represents an intersection of parliamentary power as well as federal power. The special characteristic in Canada is that the power is centralized at each level and at the same time is dispersed between different levels. It can be said that in Canada the approval of the Senate is necessary for every issue but at the same time the Senate cannot withhold its consent. Even in the Supreme Court of Canada we can witness the presence of executive federalism. The federal cabinet is also an example of executive federalism in Canada. 3 The advocates of executive federalism were of the opinion that this form of government will reduce the responsibility of the parliament in the governance of the country whereas the provinces will be allowed to take some amount of national responsibility. They also felt that such a government will establish a welfare state in Canada. Canada under the influence of the executive federalism the benefits allowed were family allowance, unemployment insurance scheme, the scheme of old age pension, old age security plans, the Canada Pension Plan and the initiation of Child Tax Credit. Another positive step which was taken during this era was the elimination of child poverty.4 They were also of the opinion that the best way for a country like Canada was to trust the elites and hence they felt that the executive federalism which gave a lot of weightage to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the Provinces for policy making was most apt for Canada. They were of the opinion that executive federalism provided the country with an amount of cohesion by providing collaboration among the existing provinces. Another advantage which may be noted of the system of executive federalism is that it was used to settle federal-provincial fiscal issues. The executive federalism in Canada suffers from a number of difficulties. For instance the greatest problem of this form of government is that it has a strong democratic deficits and it suffers from the vagaries of success and failures. Moreover it is clear that as executive federalism which looks into the interests of federal governments as well as provincial government will tend to overlook those interests which do not fall under the purview of either the federal government or the provincial government. So it is very much possible that the interests of the common people are neglected. As we try to find out the weaknesses of the executive federalism in Canada we see that Cairns opines, that with the establishment of executive federalism the centrality of political authority diminishes in the sense that there is a lack of governmental authority in matters of public policy.5 The executive federalism of Canada is said to be a closed system of government in which the common people are completely excluded from the policy formations of the country. It was also believed that executive federalism was formed to make federalism match with the parliamentary system. The system of executive federalism from the 1960s onwards has been used for purposes which are not so suitable. Such purposes include constitutional reforms and amendments. For instance it can be said that in 1982 the amendment that took place in Canada was inappropriate as it was modeled on the features of executive federalism. In fact the addition of consent from the provincial legislatures actually changed the process and added completely a new dimension to the Meech Lake debate. The Meech Lake debate in fact did not correspond to the existing cultures and the political needs of Canada. The process was opposed by the English-Canada because it did not reflect the complexities and diversities of the English-Canadian society. They did not accept it on the grounds that they will not tolerate the decisions of the elite and wanted to participate in the political decisions. The Canadian-English in fact felt that their rights were threatened under the influence of the Meech Lake Accord. Such feelings of threat were increased by the certain other activities like free trade, imposition of tax on goods and services against the wish of the majority. The Canadian people felt about executive federalism that it had the capacity to bring about a constitutional crisis and deadlock just like it had done in Australia. As a result gradually people started thinking about alternatives to the concept of executive federalism.6 The new challenge in front of Canada was to develop a new institution which would enable the representation of the common people in the national institutions and processes. Rather it can be said the need of the hour was to find a way out of dualism. In fact it was believed that the failure of the Meech Lake Accord was a turning point for Canada and hindered the growth of federalism in Canada. Canada was different from all the other countries in the sense that it had a multi cultural pluralistic society and hence it was necessary that Canada forms a federalism which will look into the interests of all the existing groups of Canada. Most Canadians are of the opinion that in federal institutions the differences that exist in the Canadian society are not adequately represented. Therefore the new system which ought to develop in Canada should be such that the federations formed should incorporate the differences into them. For instance moving away from the prominence of the elites the Canadians can make a system which will give seat to the aboriginals of Canada in the House of the Commons and in the various provinces as well as territories. That in fact is a way to represent the common man in the national processes and the institutions. As discussions to restructure Canada sprang up the first issue which came up was that the essential character of federation was representation of diversity but Canada’s federation was far from representation of the differences because Canada hooked on the system of executive federalism. Therefore the first change that should come about in the federal structure of Canada is that it should include the elements of difference in the Canadian structure. Moreover it was found that executive federation of Canada had made the policies of Canada directed towards the interests of the provinces or the central power but the Canadian people in the new form of government wants that the administrators or the government should look to all the needs of the common people.7 Even though politicians acknowledge the existence of executive federalism in Canada yet they say that it suffers from a democratic deficit in the sense that the most important decisions which ought to affect the lives of the people of Canada are taken behind closed doors by the elites. In order to do away with the difficulties of executive federalism the leaders of Canada decided that they should form a more co-operative or collaborative form of federation whereby the interests of all the regions as well as individual interests will be fulfilled. Studies have found that the problems which are being noticed in the federation of European Union were inherent in the federation of Canada which was called executive federation. Donald Smiley has argued that, “a system of government which is executive dominated and within which a large number of public issues are debated and resolved through the ongoing interaction of governments”. Executive federalism was in fact was characterized by the feature of executive domination. Too much of emphasis on the Prime Ministers and other ministers of the Cabinet actually provided the direction of a more centralized government. Rather it can be said that Canada could be compared to the EU model as because the features of federation in the EU were modeled more on a developing federation or on a federation which was in crisis and the Canadian federation was in fact in crisis as it was overweighed with the features of executive federation.8 Taking cue from all this features from the detailed study of the executive federalism we can say that it is a system not desirable for Canada. The essence of federation says that all the diversities existing in the country should be represented in a system of federation whereas in executive federation we have seen that primarily the interests of the elites of the country are represented. Only those issues get prominence which are of interest to the elite leaders and the public policies which are of importance to the common people are negated in the system of executive federalism. The Meech Lake coup which was as an instance of executive federalism was a complete failure in the sense that all the diverse groups in Canada like the aboriginals, minorities and a lot more, after the incident felt that their interests will never be represented by the elites and as a result their purposes will never be served through the executive federalism. Eugene Forsey a constitutional expert was of the opinion that the executive federalism was in fact a way to give powers to the politicians whereas in reality the actual aim of the constitution was to provide the power to the people through the agency of the politicians. In this regard it can be said that a system which do not serve the interests of the people should be discarded and accordingly in Canada the executive federalism should be abolished in order to give the common people the maximum benefit from the existing form of government. Therefore it is necessary that a new system of government replaces the executive federalism in Canada. 9 McConnell have suggested that such a form of government should be established in Canada which will provide adequate representation of all the people and will also serve the interests of the people. He has also said that the new form of government would not only bring about adequate representation but also should educate the people about the new forms of constitutionality. McConnell opines that the new form of federalism which needs to be formed should not be aimed towards fulfilling the interests of the major key political players but should think about the majority of the people who are present in the country.10 Some of the advocates of executive federalism are of the opinion that a move away from the tenets of executive federalism poses a danger for the country. This is because the citizens are given too much of power to handle, if a country moves from executive federalism. As a result what happens is that citizen’s start expecting and demanding too much from the government. Not only that they start making undue demands which in turn creates unnecessary pressure on the government. Moreover the advocates also said that the politicians are elected as leaders of the citizens and therefore the leaders have legitimate power to direct the people of the country because the leaders elected are experts and have adequate knowledge about the welfare of the country and hence there should be no opposition to executive federalism because that gives the leaders the power to take decisions for the people. At the same time the fact that all the citizens are not capacitated to understand the complex features of the government also justify the presence of executive federalism in the country. Another feature which was seen as a probable danger of moving away from executive federalism is that when the common people are given the right to participate in the decision making process in the country there is ample possibility that they will participate only in those decisions which are closely linked to their well being. Therefore in such a scenario it will become difficult to take other decisions which are indirectly linked to the welfare of the country and in turn the people. This is because the common people in most cases fail to understand the implications of the policies which are taken by the government. Hence the advocates of executive federalism advises that to carry on proper functioning of the government it is absolutely necessary that a country sticks to the form of executive federalism.11 In our extensive study we have seen that executive federalism is basically a way of giving too much of power in the hands of a particular group or concentration of power in a few hands. Rather it can be said that the power gets limited to those in the power position and those who are not in the power position are at the mercy of the powerful section. In fact executive democracy is a way to play the typical political power game. With the help of executive democracy eminent leaders of the country like the Prime Minister and the First Ministers have all the power in their hands so that they can make all policies which shall favor their power position. Executive federalism is a system of political hegemony. In case of Canada we see that it practices executive federalism and as a result the interests of the diverse groups of Canada do not get adequate recognition and so the people do not support the system of executive federalism. The European Union model of federation is in line with a flawed federalism and that is why it can be said that Canada’s move towards the EU model does not bring about any kind of improvement in the land of Canada. The common people who are the main strengths of a country are neglected through this system and so such a system cannot be claimed as an ideal model. Rather a model which is more transparent in nature and takes into account the interests of all the diverse groups existing in Canada should replace the system of executive federalism. Thus we can conclude saying that we have accomplished the goal of the study and have adequately proved that the executive federalism is not a desirable system in Canada as its weaknesses outweighs its strengths. Hence executive federalism should be abolished from the land of Canada in order to bring about justice to all the sections of the country. Works Cited 1. Boyer Patrick. The peoples mandate: referendums and a more democratic Canada. Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., 1992. 2. Grüder Andreas. Federalism doomed: European federalism between integration and separation. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002. 3. Ismael Shereen. . Child poverty and the Canadian welfare state: from entitlement to charity. Canada: University of Alberta, 2006. 4. LaSelva Samuel. The moral foundations of Canadian federalism: paradoxes, achievements, and tragedies of nationhood. Canada: McGill-Queens Press, 1996. 5. Mahler Gregory. New dimensions of Canadian federalism: Canada in a comparative perspective. New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1987. 6. Pascal Elizabeth. Defining Russian federalism. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. 7. Randle Kathryn. “The Future of Canadian Federalism”. Canadian Study of Parliament Group. Ottawa: November, 1990, retrieved on July 17, 2009, from:http://www.studyparliament.ca/English/pdf/ongoing/1990_11_E.pdf. 8. Tuohy Carolyn. Policy and politics in Canada: institutionalized ambivalence. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1992. Read More