Elizabeth Caldwell
The preamble of the Canadian
constitution lays out the goals to be independent underneath the mantle of the
Monarch of the United Kingdom and to base their constitution after the
constitution of the UK. The preamble further entails their desire that such a
union would better the provinces of Canada and promote the interests of the
British Empire including the expansion of Canada.
The Canadian constitution specifies
a mainly majoritarian government with some few features that could be seen as
consensual. The overall framework does fit with what is described in the
preamble as a nation wishing to be independent underneath the mantle of monarch
and government of the United Kingdom which would express federalism and the
preamble also sets forth their constitution as being directly modeled after the
United Kingdoms which would be described as a majoritarian system.
The majoritarian system is further
emphasized by the electoral system that would be described as pluralist and
while there are multiple smaller parties Lijphart describes Canada as having a
2.5 party system with multiple smaller parties that have very little political
influence compared to the two larger parties, something else commonly noted in
majoritarian systems of government.
The Canadian constitution describes
a bicameral legislature with a Senate and a House of Commons, which would
suggest a consensual feature. However in practice it is a very unequal in terms
of power since the Senate is not elected but appointed for their entire lives
similar to the House of Lords in the UK they are not granted as much power as
the House of Commons in practicality since the House of Commons is popularly
elected. This fits with the model of the United Kingdom as a heavily uneven system
of power meaning for practical purposed the legislature is unicameral.
The Canadian House of Commons put a
lot of power into its cabinets as benefiting a majoritarian system and
non-cabinet members of the parliament have little to no power. Their votes
count more s vote of confidence or no confidence rather that actual approval or
disapproval of the bill in question. This means the cabinet or cabinets wield
most of the power as benefiting a Westminster system.
In terms of head of government
Canada could be described as a constitutional monarchy. The Queen of the UK
must pass approval on all laws but she has a representative within the federal
government. This Governor General is generally appointed by the queen and not
but popular election s he does not have a lot of power in practice but as her representative
is considered the head of state in Canada. In practice the prime minister wields
most of the power as he is selected from amongst popularly elected representative
but must share power with the governor general and seek approval for laws through
the Queen.
While mostly majoritarian the one
feature that stand out the most as consensual in the federalist split between
the provinces and the central government. This may again be based on the constitution
of the UK but none the less it is a consensual feature.
Lijphart chapter 5 and 8
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteElmer van der Vlugt
ReplyDeleteIn general, the above analysis seems to be in the right direction, but there are still a few points to be made. Lijphart notes that Canada’s interest group system is pluralistic, which means that interest groups are competing with each other for influence and say in the politics of a country, as opposed to the organised and cooperative style of a more corporatist interest group system (1). Canada's interest group system fits Lijphart's definition of a majoritarian system (3). It also shows another way in which the mission as stated in the preamble, to base the constitution on the British equivalent, was successful, seeing as the UK has a similarly pluralist system of interest groups (1, 2).
On the other hand, when looking at the amendment procedure for the Canadian constitution (as described in Part V), a more consensual tendency can be seen. In general, agreement by both the Senate and House of commons are required as well as two-thirds of the provincial legislative assemblies so long as they represent at least 50 per cent of the population (Art 38.1) (2). There is, however, a set of topics for which unanimous consent of the Senate, House and the provincial legislative bodies is necessary. Among these topics are the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province, but also the composition of the Canadian Supreme Court (Art. 41) (2). It seems thus that some parts of the political system were deemed too important to be decided or amended by ‘just’ a qualified majority. Compared to the UK, both amendment procedures are more stringent, as there is only a majority in the House of Commons necessary to ‘amend’ the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom (4). The amendment provisions of the Canadian constitution are therefore not in line with the preamble’s aim to mimic the British constitution. Consecutively, for the British Westminster system is seen as a near-perfect prototype of the majoritarian system, the amendment procedure in Canada causes Canada to move a little towards the consensual end of the majoritarian-consensual spectrum.
References:
1. Lijphart Chapter 9.
2. Canadian constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Canada_2011.pdf
3. Lijphart Chapter 1.
4. Lijphart Chapter 2.
The analysis above describes Canada as a predominantly majoritarian democracy, and one of the features that I would like to expand on is the role of federalism in the Canadian constitution. In Article IV part 3, which covers issues of natural resources, the constitution clearly affirms the authority of Parliament to enact legislation when in conflict with the Provinces (1). This is an example of an area where the roles of Parliament, the national legislature, and the regional governments have power clearly distinguished. However, as Banting and Simeon illustrate in The Politics of Constitutional Change, Canada faces interest conflicts between the English and French speaking demographic groups (2). It is interesting to see the clause mentioned above clearly state that, at least in issues relating to natural resources, the Parliament retains legislative supremacy; this shows that the authors of the constitution thought it wise to clearly delineate and identify which governing authorities have power in particular cases.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I would like to touch on the role of the power of Canada’s executive cabinet, which Elizabeth mentioned as being representative of a majoritarian democracy. The constitution declares executive power to the Queen in article III and provisions power to the Governor General (3). This section is particularly vague, however the Parliament of Canada’s website describes the delegation of authority; under the Queen the Prime Minister and the Cabinet make up the executive branch (4). Lijhart, when discussing majoritarian democracies, cites the cabinet as the most powerful governing institution (5). Logically this fits, as the cabinet can direct legislative priorities based on majority rule since it controls a majority of Parliament. The cabinet is a piece of Canada’s governing structure that places it in the realm of a majoritarian democracy, though it does not appear in the constitutional text, and fits with Elizabeth’s analysis.
1. Canadian constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/search/topics#?key=fedsep&country=Canada&cons_id=Canada_2011
2. Keith Banting and Richard Simeon, “The Politics of Constitutional Change,” page 11.
3. Canadian constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/search/topics#?key=execnum&country=Canada&cons_id=Canada_2011
4. Parliament of Canada website, “How does Canada’s Parliament work?” http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/inside_view/puzzle_content-e.html
5. Lijphart chapter 2, page 11.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid Smellie
ReplyDeleteThe initial analysis indicates Canada’s system as being primarily majoritarian, an analysis I agree with for the most part. In this follow-up I will expand on the role of the electoral system and federal system in Canada.
Canada’s electoral system uses single member district plurality system, which is a strong indication of a majoritarian system (1,2, 4). This seems to be based on the British Westminster system of government especially as the Canadian Constitution invests executive power in the British Queen and explicitly names the British government in its preamble as well as the maintaining of British institutions in article 12. The system is constitutionally set up so that each district is represented by a single member of the House of Commons with Parliament being able to change many electoral laws at will (as seen in Articles 40 and 41), a clearly majoritarian idea of Parliamentary power.
However, Canada also implements a federal system into its Constitution, originally recognizing four provinces in Article 5 and specifies the power of these provinces in Section V of the Constitution, an idea specified by Lijphart to be consensual (3). This division of Canada can be hypothesized to have resulted from the large French-speaking group in Quebec. This hypothesis is supported by the Constitutional Act of 1982 specifying English and French as official languages of Canada with equal status and allowing the French-speaking minority to guarantee a French education in all parts of Canada (2). The Constitution also includes provisions for the development of additional provincial regions. The enumerated powers for provinces are found in Article 92, including the able to borrow credit, raise taxes, and enforce civil and property rights which is a substantial deviation from a centralized, non-federal system in which all taxes would be raised federally. This is also different from a decentralized non-federal system and a centralized federal system indicating a decentralized federal system in Canada similar to that found in the United States although at a less extreme level of decentralization. As such, despite Canada’s majoritarian declaration and general leaning, substantial nods to consensual government can be found in the places stated as well as other articles and laws implemented in Canada.
References:
1: Canadian constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Canada_2011.pdf
2: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system
3: Lijphart Chapter 2
4: Lijphart Chapter 8
I agree with the analysis that Canada's constitution denotes a primarily majoritarian, albeit federal government system. I would like to expand on the party system that characterizes the majoritarian system.
ReplyDeleteAs noted above, Canada effectively has a "2.5" party system. As defined by Lijphart, a 2.5 party system consists of two large parties and one or more significantly smaller parties that play a substantial political role or have potential to create a coalition government with one of the larger two parties. (1) Historically, Canada has had two dominant parties, the Conservatives (right) and the Liberals (left), with the New Democrats (center-left) and the Bloc Quebecois (center-left) existing as smaller parties holding some seats in Parliament. (2) However, in 2011, the New Democrats became the opposition party to the Conservative government for the first time in its history, while the Liberal party suffered large losses. (3) This shift may suggest that Canada's effective number or parties could be shifting to a number closer to 3, however it is important to note that only Conservatives and Liberals have formed governments since World War I. (2) Nevertheless, if the New Democrats form a majority government in the future, which could happen as indicated by their dramatic gains in 2011, an argument could be made for a more consensus-style party system existing in Canada. With three major parties and no dominant party, Canada would qualify as a multiparty system, which is a consensus trait according to Lijphart. (1) It is also important to note that the interests of and support for the Bloc Quebecois party are regional, however the party holds few seats in Parliament and therefore cannot be seen as evidence for a consensus party system. All things aside, presently, Canada has a 2.5 party system, which is perhaps to to the single-member-plurality election system as clearly outlined in its constitution. (4) According to Lijphart, single-member-plurality electoral systems represent a majoritarian system of government. (5)
In the future, the case for Canada's majoritarian system may be weakened with changes in the political landscape which indicate a change to a more consensus system, however it remains majoritarian for now.
1. Lijphart Chapter 5.
2. Is Canada a Westminster or Consensus Democracy? A Brief Analysis: http://oldapsa.apsanet.org/imgtest/PSOct06StudlarChristensen.pdf
3. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Canada
4. Canadian Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/search#?q=canada&country=Canada&cons_id=Canada_2011
5. Lijphart Chapter 8.
Stephen Siddall
Delete