Federal Government of Canada - Essay Example

Federal Government of a Canada: A Hindrance to Democracy To better understand the level at which the Canadian government system is towards democracy,what must first be made clear is the concept of democracy itself. The concept of democracy is based on four elements. The first is the existence of a political system of choosing and replacing a government through a free and fair electoral process, secondly the people are to actively participate in political and civil life, thirdly there must be a means of protection of human rights of every citizen and lastly a rule of law where by every procedure is applied to all citizen as equally. Democracy creates a way in which the people select leaders and hold them accountable for their conducts while in office. The people choose who represents them in every level of government be it national or local. The government is made by the authority of the people, in other words the people are sovereign. Democratic system is such that it is by the rule of law and not by individuals. The rule of law is to protect the citizens’ rights, maintain order and regulate the power of the government. Citizens are obligated to get information on public matters, take a careful watch at how political leaders use their power and to give their personal opinions and concerns. Citizens enjoy rights such as right of speech, worship, culture and beliefs. They also enjoy freedom of movement and right to protest against government decisions1. One of the ways to make sure that a government system experiences democracy to its fullest is through checks and balances that make sure that political power is spread and decentralized 1. This is base on the belief that government operates best with its potential for abuse controlled and when it is as close as possible to the people. Generally checks and balances mean two things, federalism and power separation. Federalism breaks the government in levels of federal, state or province, and local like the one in Canada2. The Government System in Canada The constitution of Canada breaks the government into two major parts: federal government and provincial government. There is also a provision by the constitution for the provincial government to delegate some of its responsibilities to the municipal government. Municipal government can be further divided into regional and local. The federal government of Canada is made up of departments, organizations and agencies. The cabinet forms the centre of the government which is headed by the prime minister. The cabinet’s main function is to direct the government in matters that are priority, policies and to see that they are implemented. Democratically, Canadian government is a parliamentary democracy. It recognizes the law as the supreme authority. The constitution of Canada that was enacted in 1867 makes the basis of the written law. The constitution states that Canada shall have one parliament that has three separate elements: the crown, the house of senate and the House of Commons. Yet Canada being a federal state, law making responsibilities is shared among the one federal government, ten provincial and three territorial governments3. When it comes to making laws, the power has been given to the legislature that is made up of individuals who have been chosen to represent the people. In other words the type of government is representative. The structure of the federal legislature is Bicameral as it consists of two distinct houses also known as chambers: the senate which is the upper house and the House of Commons which forms the lower house. The makeup of senate is individuals selected by the governor general to be representatives of provinces and territories. The house of commons is made of individuals chosen by the people of Canada through a process of voting. The ones who gather the most votes in the respective electoral district make it to the House of Commons4. The other side of Canadian government is such that it is a constitutional monarchy; it has its executive authority vested in the Queen formally. All acts of the government are undertaken in the name of the queen but the power is acquired from the people. The governor in council that possesses the executive function, which in practice is the governor general working together with the prime minister and cabinet and governor general, also gets advice from the two. Another key entity of the parliament of Canada is the political parties. These are organizations that are brought together by common ideologies, among other bonding factors as they seek political power to enact their policies. For such a democratic system election is the means of competing for political power5. In regards to the preamble of the constitution of Canada 1867, which directs that the constitution of Canada is to be similar to that of the United Kingdom, Canadian parliament is adapted from that of Britain. This system of parliamentary government has certain features that are essential. The parliament is made up of the crown, and the senate and House of Commons. The power to legislate lies with the parliament and for a legislation to become law it must be approved by each of the three constituent parts. House of Commons made up of individuals elected by the people from their elective districts. Elections are done in a single member constituency manner. A majority of the members of parliament subscribe to particular political parties that they also support. The person leading the party that has majority members in the parliament forms the government and becomes the prime minister, asked by the governor general. Parties or party that is not for the government is known as the opposition, the largest becomes the official opposition. The power of execution and implementation of government policies also known as the executive power, formally lies in the crown, but its effectiveness is based on the prime minster and the cabinet, that is derived directly from the party that forms the government. The cabinet and prime minister is answerable to the house of common in which they are responsible to. They must also gain confidence from the House of Commons. This means that they must have the support of the majority members of the House of Commons for them to retain office6. The Electoral System of Canada The nature of the Canadian government underlies the elections system given that it has so many responsibilities. Every province has its own system of election but there is also a national election for the federal parliament. The current electoral system comes from subsequent changes that have occurred since the formation of the government in 1867. In the past, the process was extremely haphazard and politically influenced: other races and gender other than white men could not vote, and there was no secret ballot. The system has gone through reforms that have seen it creation of non-partisan election system and party campaigns undergoing regulations7. The system of election has seen its organization procedure and rules involving the procedure being freed from political partisan influence. It s officials are not independent, neutral and impartial, though the laws are still made by politicians. The electoral officials must not be viewed as closely leaning towards the government of the day. Responsibilities of the chief electoral offer are to offer direction and supervision during preparation, administration and reporting of the federal election. Its other responsibility is to enforce fairness and impartiality by every electoral officer in line with the electoral act 8. The elections in Canada are to take place after every four years, though they can be called at any time in special circumstances such as when the house of commons has no majority. Primary responsibility of election is in the constituencies where it is carried out by a hierarchy of officials who swear oath of impartial conduct. The returning officer has the final electoral responsibility. It is the returning officer to appoint a clerk who also can perform some of the responsibilities of the returning officer. When the elections begin, the returning officer appoints a deputy returning officer and a polling clerk for every polling station. Such appointments are done based on the lists provided by parties that came first and second during the previous elections, unless the lists are not availed by deadline or they are rejected by the returning officer on certain grounds. The deputy returning officer enjoys the office as long as the returning officer allows them, and it’s only for the period of election 9. The only person with the power to dissolve parliament is the governor general with the advice of the prime minister as he is the representative of the Queen. This dissolution also comes with request that the chief electoral officer issue writs for an election. According to Canada electoral act, the maximum length of the writs is 36 days before federal election meaning the longest time for a federal election is 36 days. The Canada elections act further states that elections must take place on the on the third Monday in the month of October during the fourth year after the last general election. This is subject to prior dissolution of parliament. The election process begins by the chief electoral officer sending writ of election to all the returning officers. From there the returning officers must give directions in regards to nomination dates and polling dates. As long as the election is called, the other provisions and procedures are set out according to the Canada election act. It directs in regards to the dates in which major electoral activities are to occur, it lays out the procedures to be undertake for every event and designates the officials to undertake specific responsibilities10. Hindrances to Democracy The system of voting is the centre of representative democracy, and a means by which the people use to create the government. As long as every vote has an equal value then the parliament is a reflection of the peoples political will. In a situation where the voting system tends to ignore the will of the people then the government’s accountability becomes improper and democracy fails. In both the past and recent days the voting system of Canada has experienced criticism in many areas. Some see the voting system of Canada as akin to that which was used in the 12th century that was done away with by most democracies a long time ago. Canada’s current election system is based upon the winner takes it all principle. One group of voters get to win as their votes send Member of Parliament to the parliament in each riding. The other group is considered losers as they elect no one to represent them deeming the votes they cast as wasted. Those who get to send their representative to parliament for example in Ottawa are those in support of the party that is deemed as most popular. Simply put, the value of one’s vote depends upon one’s political belief and the region they hail from (place of residence). Those who hold the “wrong” kind of political beliefs and come from the “wrong” regions have their votes doing nothing. In a normal federal election in Canada the views of more than seven million Canadians are not considered which means that almost half of the votes cast are wasted)11. Both Canada and New Zealand held elections in 2011. While Canada used the winner takes it all principle, New Zealand went for a proportional voting system. 97% of the voters had the ability to choose an MP in New Zealand while only 51% managed to choose an MP in Canada. If cases where voters are treated equally the election outcome is proportional. A party that has 40% of votes elects 40% of MPs, and that with 60% gets to elect 60% of MPs. The party’s share is a reflection of the manner in how people voted. The other criticism on the voting system is that it represents an exaggerated regional difference. It is seen to be rewarding regional parties and national parties that have their focus on just some parts of the country12. Another area in which the federal system has received criticism in relation to democracy is in relation to the effects of chatter of rights. The seems to be a contradiction between the Canadian experience of 1982 charter of rights and the orthodox concept of judicial review as an independent body whose work is to check and block. Canadian charter politics is of the suggestion that the system of judiciary can uphold policies and values that have the support of the national government without considering the other units of government. Instead of reducing the strength of policies of the federal government the charter has seen them enhanced. The policy autonomy of provinces has been undermined by the charter as it has given the Supreme Court a policy sanction. This has happened despite the fact that the Supreme Court is an institution that is more inclined towards policy preferred by the elite’s national government. One such area is language policy leading to an aggravated relationship between French and English, arising as a result of a major incident that saw the Quebec restrictive language policy being nullified by the judiciary. Any attempts by the elite to compensate Quebec by means of a new amendment to the constitution have been bashed as there is an influential coalition of post materialists and social interest that uses the litigation of charter as the means to drive their non territorial policies. The Canadians for charter have risen to oppose any amendments to the constitution that will weaken the charter or the court. Through stimulation of the democratization of constitutional politics, they have managed to weaken bodies that are for consociational democracy and acceptance of elites. This led to reduced influence of every province except Quebec that has seen the rise of tendencies that seem sessesionistic inside Quebec13. The government system in Canada is viewed as the scandal as it does not seem surprising that the governments, government employees, politicians, and corporate heads are unethical, dishonest and non-representative. Despite all this, whenever they act in such a manner mostly they go uncaught and unpunished due to the various loopholes that exists within the laws and the weak enforcement upon such. The only way for the government to address the citizens concerns is when there are good laws to ensure such. Based on history, there can never be a good country without a good government, not better environment without better government and there can never be a society that is fair and just without first having a fair and just government. Amazingly laws enforcing parking of a car illegally are at times stronger than those of government accountability and corporate responsibility. To some extent even the punishment for breaking parking laws are stringer than those of government officials, politicians and corporate heads who act in manner wasteful, unethical, unrepresentative and even unethical14. Since independence the constitution of Canada mandated politicians to enact laws that promote peace, order and good governance. But instead of politicians passing laws that are strong and good, they have been playing games by either strengthening the laws and weakening the enforcement or strengthening the enforcement but creating loopholes within the laws. These have led to penalties that are too weak that cannot discourage breaking of such laws. Many reasons could lead to government officials and corporate heads behaving in unwanted manner but mostly it is because their operation conditions are bad. Usually when this happens it is the people that pay for such acts. Any changes proposed to increase accountability are resisted by politicians, government officials and executives. Canadian politicians are in the driver’s seat of their own rules while the biggest corporate spend up to $25 billion yearly in promoting efforts, this shows huge levels of inequality that is against the spirit of democracy that states that all citizens are equal15. The government and political parties keep breaking laws at will. One such example is the ministry of environment and ministry of fisheries showing not to save species that are at risk yet they have been mandated to enact the Species at Risk Act. In a case against the government, a federal judge found the government guilty of violation the act and showing lack of interest to implement it. Just like most legislations, there seem to be no clear punishment if the government violates statutes. It is just a cycle of the judicial branch, telling the executive branch that it has offended that which the legislative made into law. The only remedy is to take them to court with the hope that the democratic system will push them to act16. The other instances where the government has been deemed as breaking the law is in regards to the Kyoto protocol in 2011 as it attempted to withdraw following the prime ministers arrival form Durban south Africa after attending the UN meeting . This was not just breaking the international treaties but also domestic laws. The Kyoto implementation act had been passed in 2007 by the House of Commons with the royal assent. The prime ministers attempts for withdrawal were against the law as the House of Commons had not discussed the manner. This is a thwart on democracy as the prime minister has no powers to take such actions without consulting the House of Commons and also by taking such actions it meant he had amended an act without following the right protocol17. Political parties on the other hand have been breaking election laws that they are supposed to uphold as good examples to the people they are to lead. When they are caught to have broken such laws, they cut out deals for themselves with the consent of the judiciary. The conservative party was found guilty for not conserving the election law that sets the limit of election expenses a party could not exceed. Though the party was charged a fine of $52,000 for breaching such rules but still four of its officials charged on several accounts saw their charges dropped18. The federal government of Canada is plagued by unkept and broken promises. During the election campaigns in 2006, the federal conservative promised to pass the accountability act in case the elections went in their favour. This was to contain 52 clean up measures to improve on government’s accountability, besides five other reforms for democracy. Yet when the act was introduced it only had 30 measures and had weak key ethic rules. Again in 2006 there was another promise by the federal conservative to form a public appointment commission that was independent to ensure every appointment to the cabinet was based on merit and not loyalty to government. This promise was broken, besides most provincial governments lack commissions that makes sure appointments are pure on the basis of merit. These are just but a few examples of promises not kept and broken by the federal conservative government19. Conclusion The spirit of democracy is based on four key elements; first the existence of a political system of choosing and replacing a government through a free and fair electoral process, secondly the people are to actively participate in political and civil life, thirdly there must be a means of protection of human rights of every citizen and lastly a rule of law where by every procedure is applied to all citizen as equally. One way of making sure the government system is as democratic is through checks and balances, simply put federalism and power separation. Constitutionally the Canadian government is divided into two major entities; the federal government and the provincial government, with the laws being made by legislatures chosen by the people. In an attempt to uphold free and fair elections, the election officials must not at any point be seen as leaning towards the government side. Constitutionally elections in Canada are held every four years on the third Monday of October on the fourth calendar year after the last general elections. Democracy in Canada has come under threat in numerous ways from the federal government. One such are is the electoral system where the winner take it all as opposed to proportional approach. The government has also been pointed out as infringing on the same laws it is expected to uphold. In many areas the judiciary has found the executive to have infringed several laws. There seems to be no proper punishment system for offences by the government. The only way is to take matters to court with the hope that things will change. Lastly the federal government is characterized by promises that are broken and unkept. With examples listed above and others that have not been listed, it is safe to conclude that the federal government of Canada is a hindrance to democracy. Bibliography Democracy Watch. “Democratic Voting Systems Campaign, Advocating for representative, democratically elected, governments”. 2014. http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/voter-rights-campaign/ ( accessed 3 June 2014) Democracy watch. “The system is scandal”. 2014. http://www.dwatch.ca/Clean_Up_the_System.html (accessed 3 June 2014) Fair Vote. “This is democracy? Why Canadians need a fair and proportional voting system”. 2014. http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FVC-Tabloid.pdf (accessed 3 June 2014) Fitzpatrick M. “May accuses Harper of breaking law over Kyoto”. 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/may-accuses-harper-of-breaking-law-over-kyoto/1.999069 (Accessed 3 June 2014) Marleau and Montpetit. Parliament of Canada, House of Commons Procedure and Practice. 2000. http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx? Sec=Ch01&Seq=2&Language=E (Accessed 3 June 2014) McSorley T. “Feds Show "Lack of Political Will to Implement Law" for At Risk Species” 2014, http://www.desmog.ca/2014/02/21/feds-lack-political-will-implement-law-for-risk-species (3 June 2014) Morton F L. “The Effect of the Charter of Rights on Canadian Federalism”. 2014. http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/173.abstract ( accessed 3 June 2014) Payton L. “Conservative Party fined for breaking election laws”. 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-fined-for-breaking-election-laws-1.1076877 (3 June 2014) Stanford edu. “What is Democracy? Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies”. 2004. http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm (accessed 3 June 2014) Robertson R J and Spano S. “The Canadian electoral system”. 2008. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp437-e.htm (accessed 3 June 2014) U.S. Department of States Bureau of International Information Programs. “What is democracy”. 2014. http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/whatsdem/whatdm7.htm (accessed 3 June 2014) Read More