The Canadian Federal elections can confuse people. The theory is that people vote for their local representative and as such the representative will bring to the legislative (the lawmaking institution) their local voice in any issue proposed. The practice is that the representative is a member of his party first and foremost and a member of this legislative body second. To further complicate matters, Canada has a two house system like the U.S. where a law is proposed and discussed in one house before going to the second house for more scrutiny. The complication is that the entire second house is unelected and a new member is chosen when there is a vacancy by the ruling political party.
The general voter has no say who is going to be leader of any political party, the voter has no say who they wish to have as minister of this or minister of that. In other words, the voter has no say whatsoever in the executive branch. And because the representative that they are voting for is part of a political party, they have no say as to the legislature either. The voted member of parliament must obey his affiliated party. Some decide to vote for non-affiliated members but under the current rules of the building where the laws are made, the non-affiliated members have little to no say as to when they can propose any law. The ones who decide who and when any member is to speak are the party whips who get together and negotiate time amongst themselves, with obvious priorities given to themselves first. The higher the party members are within the assembly, the more voice to dictate who will speak when to propose any law. If you are non-affiliated, you must negotiate with one or more of the parties to negotiate some time on your behalf.
So if you decide to represent your community and be voting on propositions and perhaps propose something as well, you are better off being part of a political party. But as soon as you join any political party, you must abide by the party rules.... so if the party decides to vote yes, you are under pressure to vote yes as well, with negative consequences should you go against them... depending on the priority of the vote. If you want more prestige so that you are invited to be part of law-making committees, then you satisfy the requirement of your political party. If you continue to work under the political party's guidance, then you may receive a posting in the executive, maybe even be minister itself. So you must constantly juggle between the demands of the population you are representing and the law-making assembly that you are now a part of.
The voters do not quite understand this because the theory of how the system works and the actual practice of it are not in sync. So as a result, some will vote for their favorite representative to speak on their behalf, some will vote for the party that they believe in and some will vote for the leader of the party. The end result is that the system becomes misunderstood when things go differently than expected because the voter expects the theoretical to work as they were taught in school.
What would be needed would be to have a vote for the representatives for the law-making institution. Once this was decided, the population would then vote for who they would want as Prime minister, who they would want as minister of this, minister of that. If the Prime minister wishes to introduce a new ministry, then people could again vote for who they want as the minister. This would make both branches accountable.
To explain better: you choose within your community the best representative for your community; who must be, first and foremost, loyal to his home community. When the entire nation has had its say, we find that political party #A has 200 representatives, party #B has 100 representatives and party #C has 50. So we then vote who in party #A will be the Prime minister, who in party #A will be minister of this, etc.... then we vote out of party #B, who will be the leader of the opposition, who will be the critic of ministry x, and on and on. This places the executive and the legislative under direct scrutiny of the population and guarantees that the representative will be more loyal to his home community than to his home party.
Naturally, if we continue having a second house (the senate), to discuss our laws, then they should also be voted members instead of chosen/appointed. I would not want the Senate to owe allegiance to the ones who appointed them there. I do believe that the Conservatives also want the Senate to be elected (will have to check in on their platform.... they may be the only ones?).
On another blog I may talk about how I would prefer to see 3 houses instead of 2 or 1, but that is too technical for now. Suffice it to say, my criticism is more based upon what we get out of an election and how we could modify it better. How we vote is another topic and should we modify any of the branches of government is yet another topic.
Showing posts with label legislative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislative. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)