Posted on 04/06/2005 9:02:53 AM PDT by MikeEdwards
According to reports in the U.S. media, the Democrats are worried that George Bush and his fellow Christian fundamentalists, now that they have control of both Houses of Congress, will feel free to ride roughshod over all opinions contrary to their own. Since the U.S, unlike Canada, is blessed with a system of checks and balances, no president, no matter how popular he may be, can impose his will on the nation. The U.S. Democrats would really have something to worry about if they had to contend with a Canadian style government, where, unlike the U.S., there is nothing to stop a prime minister, when he heads a majority government, from ramming through whatever bill he pleases.
In order for an American president to wield this kind of power, he would have to be able to order every senator and congressman in his own party to vote as he tells them to. Take, for instance, the phony three-way face-off between Ottawa. Queen’s Park and Toronto City Hall over the funding, or should that be the de-funding, of Ontario’s infrastructure. This is a classic example of the nonsense that passes for leadership in our system of government. If our MPs had to answer to their constituents, as their U.S. counterparts must do, we’d have a lot less of this grandstanding.
The real danger in all this buck-passing by politicians is the serious flaw in our political system that permits prime ministers and premiers, when they hold a majority of seats in their respective parliaments, to behave like banana republic dictators. We are so fed up with smarmy politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, in both English and French, that millions of us don’t bother to vote at all. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
This, umm, "theory" regarding the Candian Parliament being a systemic breeding ground of dictatorship must have been a leftover April Fool's joke. The ability of any single person to order other people to do exactly as he demands is completely contingent upon the spinelessness of those he seeks to order about. There is nothing in the Canadian or British parliamentary systems that compels members of parties to vote the party line or to acquiesce to a prime minister declaring himself Lord of the Universe. The absence of an opposition party in a provincial legislature, as cited in the article, is the result of the whims of the electorate, not the machinations of the prime minister. Furthermore, there is nothing inherent in the American system that prevents a U.S. president from attempting to act dictatorially. There is, for example, the case of Lincoln and his numerous violations of the basic Constitutional rights of Americans during the War of Secession. Therefore, it is absurd and troubling that ill-founded and hysterical agitation is being directed at Canada. One is bound to question why this being done, and correctly so.
"There is nothing in the Canadian or British parliamentary systems that compels members of parties to vote the party line or to acquiesce to a prime minister"
If you are a Liberal MP, and don't do what you are told, then you can can be kicked out of caucus and /or have the the party leader refuse to allow you to run for re-election. In short, it's a career ender.
Yes, they could still do it and take consequences, but if they had that much character they wouldn't be Liberals in the first place.
The problem in the Canadian system is that the Prime Minister has too much power to delegate, appoint, and bestow. The Senate is appointed, the judges are appointed, even the Cabinet is appointed.
Trudeau started this "party discipline" approach and of course Canadians are too Type-B to take any initiative in they're own lives so they like a strong paternal figure running the country as "benevolent dictatorship."
Canadians ahev always had overloads dictating morals, policy and such. Pre 1965 it was the Church (Protestant and Catholic) and Post 1965 it was the Liberal Party with Mulroney as an honorary member.
Canadians need a godlike figure in their lives. It used to be Jesus, now its the Trudeaupian state.
Why? Canadians are a simple working class people. The small town mentality (in a bad way) still is pervasive in Eastern Canada.
Not so fast there. The House districts are all Gerrymandered, so that in reality very few incumbents need fear their constituents.
"Pre 1965"
You are absolutely correct about the pre 1965. We were a monoculture, christian, not a ashamed capitalists, and a fine military. When I talked to seniors about our problem they always say one word: TRUDEAU
I blame the Canadian People. Someone had to keep Trudeau at 24 Sussex Dr. for 20+ years. No, in 1965 the Canadian people let the worst in them take over. They gave up and sold they're souls for the nanny-state.
Gerrymandering goes on in Canada also, but not to the blatant degree it goes on in the US. They don't have those odd shaped Congressional districts like that 200 mile long and 5 mile deep one on the Central California Coast, but you should see the shenanigans that goes on for a party nomination in Canada, all parties.
Tell that to John Nunziata, Carolyn Parrish (although there was a different reason with her), (possibly in the future) Pat O'Brien, Roger Galloway and several other Liberals-in-name-only!
The best case of gerrymandering in Canada in recent memory was actually done within a party - the Tony Valeri-Sheila Copps fiasco in Hamilton. They redistributed it so that there was a strong NDP riding in Hamilton Centre, a strong Conservative riding in Niagara West-Glanbrook (rural Hamilton) and a supposedly strong Liberal riding melded out of the strongest Liberal parts of Hamilton East and Stoney Creek. It forced Sheila to leave politics, and almost cost Tony his job too (the NDP came close and the Conservatives weren't that far off either!)
My other favorite case of undemocratic actions: the same-sex marriage legalization. The Liberal upper body (and the dictatorship of the NDP) know that if they took the message to the polls, it would fail in 9 of 10 provinces (in at least 4 of them I think a constitutional amendment would easily pass). So they have to resort to only doing it by legislators, not by the people.
I wish I could destroy some groups here - the labor unions are saying there should be NO free vote on the matter for ANY Liberal MPs (hence it would instantly pass). Their words are that free votes are undemocratic "because they take rights away" (no one has the RIGHT to marry)
Toronto Conservative BUMP!
According to reports in the U.S. media, the Democrats are worried that George Bush and his fellow Christian fundamentalists, now that they have control of both Houses of Congress, will feel free to ride roughshod over all opinions contrary to their own. Since the U.S, unlike Canada, is blessed with a system of checks and balances, no president, no matter how popular he may be, can impose his will on the nation. The U.S. Democrats would really have something to worry about if they had to contend with a Canadian style government, where, unlike the U.S., there is nothing to stop a prime minister, when he heads a majority government, from ramming through whatever bill he pleases.
In order for an American president to wield this kind of power, he would have to be able to order every senator and congressman in his own party to vote as he tells them to. Take, for instance, the phony three-way face-off between Ottawa. Queen’s Park and Toronto City Hall over the funding, or should that be the de-funding, of Ontario’s infrastructure. This is a classic example of the nonsense that passes for leadership in our system of government. If our MPs had to answer to their constituents, as their U.S. counterparts must do, we’d have a lot less of this grandstanding.
The real danger in all this buck-passing by politicians is the serious flaw in our political system that permits prime ministers and premiers, when they hold a majority of seats in their respective parliaments, to behave like banana republic dictators. We are so fed up with smarmy politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, in both English and French, that millions of us don’t bother to vote at all.
Canada is in dire need of politicians who believe in government of, for, and by the people, but we won’t get it so long as we allow a majority government to wield dictatorial powers. And we certainly won’t get good government from politicians who regard governing as a business. If governance was that simple, we could abolish elections altogether, and let the top bank and business CEOs run the country. And, when you think of it, that might be an improvement on our current system.
It's said that power tends to corrupt, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just look at a few of the awesome powers that a Canadian prime minister wields: The right to appoint Governors General, Ambassadors and Supreme Court Judges. The right to call an election whenever the polls are favourable. The right to ram through any bill, no matter how unpopular it may be. The good news is the growing public realization that some form of U.S, style checks and balances is required if we are to curb the powers of our political leaders. Maybe we should require politicians to swear a political kind of Hippocratic oath, especially the part about doing no harm. Canada used to be known as a society that worked.
Now, we have a demoralized military, turmoil in our schools and hospitals, a crumbling infrastructure and a growing number of homeless people. These problems are the fault, directly or indirectly, of incompetent politicians. We should quit gloating over how complicated and expensive the U.S. system of governance is, and get to work on reforming our own antiquated system. We could start by cutting back on the number of politicians we allow to represent us. (If the U.S. had the same number of federal politicians per capita that we do, they’d be saddled with over 1,000 senators and More than 4,000 representatives). We also should demand an elected senate, proportional representation, a fixed term of office for prime ministers, and more free votes by ordinary MPs.
A few years ago, the New Brunswick Liberals, under Premier Frank McKenna, captured all the seats in the provincial election, thereby allowing them to govern without any opposition at all. If that political nightmare occurs in Ottawa, and it’s bound to happen, sooner or later, before we reform our political system, we’re all going to find out what it’s like to be stranded in that putrid stream without a any means of propulsion.
I forgot about that one. That was a split of a riding into two because of population growth, but yes it counts as shady gerrymandering.
I wonder if anyone in Hamilton got any advertising contracts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.