Are the British and Canadian Political Systems Similar - Essay Example

? Running head: History and Political Science Are the British and Canadian Political Systems Similar? Why or why not? Insert Insert Insert Instructor’s Name 03 June 2012 Concept Political system is sets of institutions and agencies responsible with designing and implementing collective goals of the society. Politics form governments elected legitimately by the public and require the citizens to follow their decisions. Political systems in a country are responsible for international and domestic environments that encompass the economy, culture, society, and diplomatic communications with outside states. The international and domestic environment shaped by a country’s political systems has significant influences on the status of the citizens. Political systems helps the government to establish key public institutions and systems like health and education and are responsible for maintaining public order and citizen safety. This is through various agencies that are responsible for formulating, implementing, and enforcing government policies with an aim of achieving specific goals. Britain has a parliamentarian system of government where majoritarian and populism are the widely accepted political philosophy to meet the requirements of the people. History has heavily shaped Britain’s and Canada’s political systems. The political system in Britain and Canada advocate for the formation of governments by political parties that have majority control over the legislative assembly (Montpetit & Foucault, 2010). The constitution of these two countries stipulates that members of parliament should be elected through single -member plurality systems; where the elected individuals represent their constituents in parliament. These individuals must obtain the largest number of votes during elections. The party that garners the largest number of seat in parliament forms the government; with their elected members expected to support the government’s agendas and bills introduced in parliaments. These majority governments are powerful and easily pass their own policy issues irrespective of opposition by political parties outside the ruling party (Klingermann, Hofferbert & Budge, 1994). Argument This paper will argue that Britain and Canada political systems are not similar because of differences in policy making, governance, elections political structure, and parliamentary proceedings influenced by a combination of temporal, cultural, and political factors distinct and different in each country. Britain has a longer political history that has been shaped by struggles between the crown and parliament over personal prerogatives, which defines the current British constitution and executive power set up. The existing democratic leadership has been heavily influenced by civil wars, revolutions, and establishment of a superior parliament over the crown. In the Britain unitary governments, all political power is held by a single national government (Tannahill & Bedichek, 1991). This political system was unsuitable to the local situation in Canada, and they designed a federation where the constitution gave the people the right to have local control over their government (Montpetit & Foucault, 2010). The Canadian federation developed a system where the national government did not have absolute control but allowed for a constitution that would govern the people with their own set of laws. Canada has a much shorter history with the democratic leadership been shaped by continuous struggles between the prime minister and the governor general. The democratic rule in Britain is primarily about political representation that wields executive powers, but the Canadian democratic rule primarily focuses on governance. The Canadian political system was developed according to Westminster parliamentary institutions in the 19th century, and these institutions were retained after independence in 1867 (Hazell et al., 2009). Evidence The United Kingdom constitution has been shaped over a long time, and it consists of written and unwritten constitution comprised of traditions and ideas accepted over very many years. Despite parliamentary systems being similar, Canada is a federation with policy formulation, implementation, and enforcement being decentralized while Britain is unitary with policy responsibilities being more centralized (Montpetit & Foucault, 2010). The two types of governments have major implications in terms of policy formulation, implementation, and enforcement. According to Klingemann, Hofferbert, & Budge (1994), under the Britain unitary government, newly elected governments adopt policies and programs of their predecessors, and they are required to pay attention to issues related to these programs rather than attend to their proffered policies. This is not true because, under a majoritarian government, the ruling party has autonomy to decide on the direction the policy issues will go. This is because Westminster perceives single party - minority government as weak and incoherent in its policy approaches (Hazell et al., 2009). Britain’s parliament- the mother of parliaments- has maintained its old structures and practices unlike other European legislatures like Canada (Blondel, 1968). Britain has been governed by the single majority governments dominated by two national parties i.e. the Labor and the Conservatives that lead the country at various times (Lijphart, 1999). This has created a British political culture where elections winners dominate every aspect of political power including policy making (Hazell et al., 2009) occasioned by a constitution that features weak local governments and supreme parliamentary sovereignty different from the consensual decentralized democracy in Canada and parts of Europe (Lijphart,1999). Britain’s centralized political system and majoritarian governments are more stable with very few possibilities of minority governments making the government in power able to pursue its own policies aggressively; without any fear of being overthrown in parliament. In contrast, the Canadian decentralized political system has resulted in formation of several single minority governments that have found it difficult and complicated to pass legislation, budgets and even remain in power since the opposition has the theoretical ability to overthrow the government in motions of confidence (Hazell et al., 2009). Canada has three major national parties, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada and the policy seeking new Democratic Party (NDP). It also has many other smaller parties including bloc Quebecois (Hazell et al., 2009). A comparative advantage in Britain centralized government is its ability to maintain unity within government unlike in Canadian decentralized governments as it is not necessary for the government to change or compromise its fundamental political ideology. Britain’s majoritarian government has an advantage as it can strike deals with different opposition parties in various policies hence increasing its bargaining power, decreasing the scale of concessions it has to make (Hazell et al., 2009). However, in the Canadian consensual political system, the federal government can institute more open and inclusive decision-making process in policy issues with great public interest. The constitution of federal Canada has provisions for shared policy responsibilities between federal and sub federal government. The federal government is tasked with responsibilities over the economy and foreign affairs while provincial governments are responsible for social affairs and education (Montpetit & Foucault, 2010). To cater for overlapping responsibilities in federal and provincial governments, which can create conflict over jurisdiction, intergovernmental forums were established to assist in policy coordination and development. Although intergovernmental forums in Canada play a significant role in avoiding disputes, in the government, it is true that they reduce the autonomy of both the federal and provincial governments as they function on a consensual basis as participants who have been given limited sovereignty by the constitution have difficulty accepting policies they have not formulated (Simeon,1972). For the federal government to function effectively, it must seek majority agreement with all provincial governments as they have the capacity to derail any decision made unliterary by the federal government by their constitutional responsibility in policy implementation (Scharpf, 1988). The federal government can derail their policy projects through reduction in financial contributions (Rocher & Rouillard, 1998). The British government does not have such complicated arrangements that determine policy implementation and support. The Canadian system favors political actors that maintain the status quo between the intergovernmental actors (Tsebelis, 2003) while the Brittan political system favor political actors who have the largest support in parliament and this gives them power in directing policy according to their own prerogative. Under the Canadian political system, newly elected governments cannot emphasize on their own policy agendas as they are limited by the requirement of intergovernmental consensus. They are further limited by the type of government in a particular province, which may lean towards particular policies (Montpetit & Foucault, 2010). If the federal government’s changes issue attention to policies contra to their priorities, it is bound to be met by resistance even if the policy issues have national importance. Unlike the Britain political system where issues of national importance may be addressed quickly and firmly, the Canadian federal government faces several challenges in managing issue attention due to the requirement of consensual intergovernmental relations. The provincial governments must maintain bilateral relationships with the federal governments over most policy issues (Montpetit & Foucault, 2010). Local governments in Britain do not have the constitutional power to limit the governments’ change in policy attention. British centralizing reduces the disputes and frictions enabling the government to shift issue attention any time after elections. Conclusion Both the Canadian federal and Britain unitary political system have advantages and disadvantages. The Canadian system suits Canada due to its different geographical and social characteristics and has changed to offer the people power over their country. It is more democratic compared to the majoritarian government in Britain as it gives the ruling party significant power over most aspects of policy making. The Britain system can bear more positive results under a short time, which can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the type of individuals in power. The Britain citizens must then scrutinize their leaders thoroughly for their own good; unlike the Canadian people who have more power than the legislative assembly does. References Blondel, J. (1968). Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Western Democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science, (1968) Vol.1, No.2. Hazell, et al. (2009) (eds.). Making Minority Government work: Hung parliaments and the challenges for Westminster and Whitehall. Institute for Government Klingemann, H., Hofferbert, R.I., & Budge, I. (1994). Parties, policies, and democracy. Boulder: Westview Press Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press Montpetit, E., & Foucault, M. (2010). Canadian Federalism and Change in Policy Attention: A Comparison with the United Kingdom .APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1644708 Rocher, F., & Rouillard, C. (1998). “Decentralisation, subsidiarite et neoliberalisme au Canada”. Canadian Public Policy, 24 (2): 233-258. Scharpf, F.W. (1988).The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration”. Public Administration, 66: 239-278. Simeon, R. (1972). Federal -Provincial Diplomacy: The Making of Recent Policy in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Tannahill, N., & Bedichek, W. (1991). American Government: Policy and Politics. New York: Harpercollins. Tsebelis, G. (2003). “Federalism and Veto Players”. In Der Preis des Foderalismus, edited by U. Wagschal & H. Rentsch. Zurich: Orell Fussli. Copyright PSA. Read More