Branches of Government

Since we are in electoral panic this month, I decided to look at the Canadian system and offer some critiques of the way things are. I want to to briefly mention each of the well known branches of government and mention 2 others that are sometimes included in the political tree. I suppose I will also offer a very brief contrast with the American system (as in the U.S. system for any Latin American readers who object to the use of "American" when describing the U.S. country). Division of powers is the underlying reasoning as to why we seperate the exercise of ruling a society into different branches. Right or wrong, it comes from the fear of having one human in control of too much: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", as if a mere human controlling a society of humans is considered absolute power when you consider the vastness of our tiny universe in a potential multiverse (according to some quantum physicists), but no matter, it is the reason we have to divide the political tree into several branches.

Branch #1, the most well known, is the executive. This is the day to day operations of running a country, the decision makers are here. See it like a CEO of a corporation, often hired to deal with the existing rules and applying them for each new situation that arises. The U.S. has this seperated and calls its office the Presidency.

Branch #2, the least well known, is the legislative. This is where the thinking up of rules happen, this is where rules themselves are created. See it like the Board of Directors, who take a more longterm vision to bring the corporation into a brighter future. In the corporate field, they usually decide who the CEO would be. In the U.S., they are the Senators and the Congress members. They discuss if they should modify existing laws, create new ones or eliminate old ones.

Canada blends branch 1 and 2 together. The Prime Minister has the responsibilities of running the day to day operations and is also head of the political party who discusses new laws. The theory is that it is better to have the ones creating the laws to implement them better. A majority in the law creation area guarantees a smooth running of government. A minority in the law creation area guarantees a constant negotiation with other political parties before implementations of laws can be made. The current Canadian elections are to change the current situation of minority rulership which slows down implementation of improving society and convince the voters to have a majority rulership. The Conservatives are the current minority leaders and they hope that their success at running a minority government will convince voters that they can handle the job of majority government. Historically, they have had the longest minority government in Canada (I think), and they have also been the ones to call an election (which is usually determined by others who outvote collectively the minority party in charge). This seems to show that they are capable to receive the trust of the voters to become the next majority law-makers in Canada.

Branch #3, the neutral party, is the judicial. This is the judge, the one who figures out what the rules actually means when there is a dispute of the citizenry who attempts to follow the rules and is somehow unfairly treated by the government. In a corporate setting, it would be the ombudsman who settles between an employee and management or between a customer and the company. The judicial does not create rules, they look at the existing rules and see if they have been misapplied. They try to interpret the spirit of the law against those who may abuse the letter of the law. Canada does not vote for judges, they are selected by the governing party. The judges are not supposed to answer to any political party, even though they are initially chosen by the head of a political party. The situation is more complex than what is described here and for brevity some of my descriptions may be too simplistically naive but I hope to preserve the essence of what the system attempts (whether the practice follows the theory is another blog's discussion which I may address in the future).

Branch #4, unofficial, could be seen as the bureaucracy. This is the hidden grease in the machinery. The bureaucrat exists in all three levels of government. The bureaucrat is never elected and will still be there when the elected official is replaced by someone else. The bureaucrat is technically under the orders of the elected official, but since the elected official is untrained in the bureaucracy that he is overseeing, he must be educated by the bureaucrat as to how things really work. If people complain that it doesn't matter who is in charge things always stay the same, then they probably have felt the negative aspects of the bureaucracy. Who is in charge of a particular Canadian ministry? The Minister himself who has just got the position or the bureaucratic advisor who has been at the same post for the past 20 years and has been promoted up the ranks of that ministry? The signature of the latest order is the Minister's but how many times have you seen the real work done by underlings and that the boss gets the credit and the signature? The bureaucracy is hidden from public scrutiny and outlasts all governments. Can a truly democratic country allow this hidden branch to continue without scrutiny?

Branch #5, unofficial, could be seen as the news media. They are supposed to offer a critical report of the above branches of government. How can we know that they are doing their jobs properly when they are controlled by bosses who have political interests who are sometimes with the current government? The journalist has to satisfy his editor, and the editor will not hire the person who has shown his political colors to be against the editor himself. Have you noticed that sometimes when a journalist asks a really tough sounding question, the elected official dances around the topic and offers no answer at all.... the journalist lets him get away with it? Can democracy be served if the journalist and the politician play act a non-existing rivalry with each other? Can democracy be served if the journalist can not access the same documents accessible to the politician or to the bureaucrat? Can democracy be served when the journalist who is there to demand answers about a politician's behavior is gently pushed aside by the politician's security detail as the politician walks down the hall to his office ignoring the questions?

I wish to focus on each branch in the following posts with a critical eye. We are so often told the positive elements but perhaps we should look at their flaws as well. The above post was more of a contrast and quick glance.