The Canadian Senate (Essay Sample)

Criticism of the Canadian Senate
Student Name
School
Course
Instructor
Date
Referencing Style: APA / Word Count: 610
Criticism of the Canadian Senate
Lowell Murray (2003) argues that the Senate has come under fire on several occasions despite its best effort to protect Canadian democracy. The criticism that the Senate faces has caused its deliberations to be made open. On the same note, member attendance is recorded and strictly covered by the media. The committee that oversees internal administration of the body has been forced to meet in public unlike other entities, such as the Commons. Additionally, senators are penalized in case they fail to fully adhere to attendance regulations. There is also strict supervision of every activity taking place in the Senate. The Senate is, therefore, criticized for several reasons, including the lack of legitimacy, erosion of checks and balances, and for being unorthodox and unpredictable.
First of all, the Senate is accused of lacking legitimacy. Most people in Canada, especially politicians and political analysts, unfairly claim that the Senate lacks legitimacy. Such critics derive their argument from the fact the entity is a non-elected legislature. The individuals maintain that the Senate completely lacks legitimacy in the Canadian parliamentary democracy (Murray, 2003). However, the critics do not consider some factors in their argument. The individuals do not ask themselves whether or not the parliamentary democracy of Canada would better if the Senate were not established in 1867. The critics also fail to ask themselves if the call for a new Senate would be an improvement on the current one or not. The idea that the Senate lacks legitimacy has resulted into the body being powerless in the eyes of the elected Commons.
Further, the Senate is criticized for eroding checks and balances. When Canada was formed in 1867, its political institutions established checks and balances similar to those of the United States. The Cabinet was tasked with being a check on the prime minister and individual ministers. The House of Common, on its end, was required to be a check on the executive (Schultz, 2004). The Senate was established and made to be a check on the elected House in a bid to offer protection to minorities. The Senate was also added the role to act as a platform where regional interests could be represented in an effective way. However, the check and balances have been destroyed to the extent that democratic deficit and elected dictatorship have become part of the contemporary Canadian society.
Finally, the Senate is regarded to be unorthodox and unpredictable. In 2017, parliamentary staff, parliamentarians, and journalists shared their thoughts on the Senate. The exercise found that the entity continues to change in an unpredictable way. Journalist Kady O’Malley, for example, said that in recent times, the Senate has become quirky (Stos, 2017). The journalist added that initially, the Senate was independent. However, for the past four or five years, things have cha