Elections and Politics - Essay Example

Elections and Politics By (Module and number) ELECTIONS AND POLITICS Each nation has its set of leaders who governs the land towards a greener pasture and a more peaceful homeland. There are leaders who were designated or assigned to the post while there are others who were elected and were chosen by the majority. What are elections? Where did it originate? Are elections truly that significant in the world of politics or just another popularity contest where the most influential will be chosen instead of the most qualified to assume the post? The earliest documentation of an election can be traced back to Athens, Greece. Conferring to the Encyclopædia Britannica (2012), the election is noted as a formal and systematic process of selecting officers who will be put into public office. In elections, the voters remain anonymous and will not be known unless they become vocal on who they have chosen for the position. Election is a way to know whether advocacies of certain politicians or political groups are accepted or rejected by the majority of the nation. There are different forms of electoral process present in different types of government. However, it is always aimed for one similar goal, to choose who is the most deserving and qualified to lead and unite the nation. Part One Canada’s government structure is described to be as Westminster Style Federal Parliamentary Democracy within a Constitutional Monarchy. It was in 1864 during the Charlestown Conference that Canada was proclaimed to be as a constitutional monarchy. In such types of government, power is not in the hands of only one person or a particular leader who thinks of what can be beneficial to all (Tidridge, 2011, 10-20). The Canadian Politics is being linked to what is being pertained to as a single member plurality electoral system. According to Grofman et al (2009, 31): “…the mechanical operation of single member plurality meant that the Liberal breakthrough in votes was hardly reflected at all in its parliamentary representation.” There are biases engaged in this type of electoral system. Though the said electoral system has its share of strengths, yet there are also downsides towards it. As earlier stated, one of the downsides is the presence of bias. During past elections, it has been concluded by law scholars that in the single member plurality electoral system, the occurrence or absence of bias cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, such electoral system is making the election impartial to those who might already be in power or have an influential due to popularity or social stature. One of the alternative electoral systems being considered by the Canadian government is the single transferrable vote (STV). The profile of this type of electoral system has been raised in Canada in 2004 subsequent the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. As Heard stated at the SFU.CA website (2012) that: “The STV system raises the probability that the main parties’ share of seats in the legislature will be somewhat proportional to their share of votes. In this system, a country or province is divided into smaller regions, and several members will be elected from each region.” With the STV system, though there is still no assurance of the elimination of bias, there will be more opportunities for local politicians to assume post. The selection of leaders will not be concentrated on just the capital of the state rather it will be focused per region. It is not just the election that will be affected but also the leadership since there will be a regional factor which will arise once this particular system will be used on an election. Another type of electoral system which is being given thoughts on by the Canadian government is the mixed member proportional (MMP) system. In this type of electoral system, there will be seats in the government up for election while there will also be seats which will be apportioned towards the majority party list. Comparing the 2 given examples, MMP will exhibit more biased as to the way it will choose who will be in the government. STV will give more opportunities for worthy politicians to be elected rather than those unworthy yet designated to a post only be appointed because of its partisan (SFU.CA, 2012). Voting in an election is one of the many rights of every person. It is how they would express their opinions and therefore should be respected and not influenced by any external factors. Yet there are internal factors and maybe some factors that a person might take into consideration on to whom he will give that coveted vote. Negative factors that can be used to influence a person’s way of voting would be when the person is intimidated, excluded or eradicated, worst is when the vote is made fraud. Such factors are always present in every election even if there is not enough public documentation about it happening. In the very unruly world of politics, there are events happening that one cannot avoid especially when it is election season (Brown, 2005, 130-60; Rallings, 1996, 14-50). A factor which is difficult to classify whether to be a positive or a negative one is the majority influence. Often, the majority party is composed of those who are already in the government. They can also be pertained to as the administration party. Once leadership capabilities are proven, the majority party can even consider themselves as a shoe-in winner when up for re-election. This works negatively for those who are in the opposition yet have more capable than those who are in the majority. There are instances when those who are in power yet less capable are out-voted by those who might be a member of the minority yet more capable of enacting the responsibilities of the post (Brown, 2005, 130-60; Rallings, 1996, 14-50). Another factor that can bring either a positive or negative effect is the media. Often, whether admitted or denied, elections are popularity contests. The more popular one is more favourable to be voted especially when the post is of neutral ground or vacant. A negative side of this is that there will be parties who will use influence to gain more exposure. The thing is what the media exposes most of the times are only the positive side or what the particular party would like to public to know. There are times when negative issues are being covered up or media blackout is declared (Brown, 2005, 130-60; Rallings, 1996, 14-50). There are several factors that can define success for interest groups. The most prominent factor according to Walker (1991, 12) is the shared economic and professional interest. However, other groups will say that the most inviting and influential factor would be is the philosophical and theological factor. The latter statement can be considered as what Walker further pertained to as the social movements. Society often dictates groups on whether to join hands towards the success of a particular goal or its abolishment. Another factor that is considered would be the empathy and sympathy factor that can affect decisions. The latter factor is often abused by politicians to get the votes of those people who have disabilities and their families. It is the job of the public to critically analyse the authenticity of the affections that these so-called advocates of those people who does not have the capability to represent themselves (Walker, 1991, 12). Part Two There is a contradiction in the term liberal democracy because the phrase itself is made up of 2 political terms that have contradicting ideas. As Watson (1991, 3) tried to explain the phrase itself: “Liberal democracy is a political system in which the people make the basic political decisions, but in which there are limitations on what decisions they can make.” Liberal democracy itself is an idea which can destroy its existence. An example would be the above statement. If people will be given power to have political decision, people can also use that same power to eliminate what is the existing beauty or harmony present in a nation. All people are influenced by numerous factors and make the whole process of choosing complex. The decision that the majority may bring might not bring out the better for the nation. The idea of liberal democracy works opposite of the ideas of the authoritarians. According to Linz as expressed by Borejsza and Ziemer (2006, 307): “Authoritarian regimes have in common the existence of distinctive mentalities, with limited, not responsible, political pluralism and manipulation with generic values like patriotism, nationalism, economic development, social justice and order.” Unlike liberal democracy that seeks the people’s opinion toward achieving a political decision, authoritarian regimes only seek those in power, often by 1 dictator, as to what the political decision might be. Just by the mere presence of the word manipulation, one can conclude that the authoritarian regime is aimed towards the better of those people or person in power and not for the public. Often, authoritarian regime ends in violence as people would want to have a sense of freedom to decide what will be the good for the nation and not for the self. Part Three There are pros and cons toward each system of government. Two of the most prominent systems of government are the presidential and the parliamentary. A presidential government has branches that decides and attends to particular issues and laws which will govern the land. This is unlike the parliamentary system where the executive and legislative branches of the government are fused as one (Lijphart, 31-47). The example given as to the positive characteristic of the presidential system can also be its negative characteristic. Since there is the division of power within the government, there will be misunderstandings and divisions toward certain issues. This issue that can cause conflicts between the 2 branches of government can also separate the nation and become alienated from each other. Same goes with the parliamentary system, since there is fusion of power, the decision will always be biased in favour of the government rather than of the people. Though there will be discussions that such does not happen, just by the mere fact that both the executive and the legislative branch of the government are headed by the same person, the decision which will be made therefore is biased. Bibliography Borejsza, J. W. and Ziemer, K. (eds.) (2006) Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes in Europe: Legacies and Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Warsaw, Poland: Berghahn Books. Browne, K. (2005) An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Election (2012) Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Available from [accessed 13 April, 2012]. Grofman., B., Blais, A. and Bowler, S. (2009) Duvergers Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media LLC. Heard, A. (2012) Elections. Available from [accessed 13 April, 2012]. Lijphart, A. (1992) Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rallings, C., Broughton, B., Denver, D. and Broughton, D. (1996) British Elections and Parties Yearbook. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Tidridge, N. (2011) Canada’s Constitutional Monarchy. Toronto, CA: Dundurn National Heritage. Walker, J. L. (1991) Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Michigan, USA: University of Michigan Press. Watson, B. C. S. (1999) Civil Rights and the Paradox of Liberal Democracy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Read More