PARTY DISCIPLINE (RESEARCH PAPER CANADIAN GOVERNMENT) (Essay Sample)

PARTY DISCIPLINE (RESEARCH PAPER CANADIAN GOVERNMENT) Name Course Professor Institution City and state Date Does party discipline hinder the role of MPs as representatives for their constituents – or does it enable Parliament to function effectively and efficiently? The goal of party discipline must be understood in light of its fundamental foundations of responsible directorate. A thorough comprehension of these areas will aid subsequent arguments in the article. Party discipline is a phrase used in the Commons systems that has a number meanings and uses, but it is primarily focused on the efficient administration of parliament. In this article, it is termed as the practice of all members of parliament within a given party voting together on all occasions. Democratic accountability is imposed via parliamentary meetings, prime ministerial directives, and party whips (Dyck & Cochrane, 2014, p. 685). Severe party discipline develops intellectual clarity among them and differentiates the official the governing party from the opposition; this certainty assists voters in making educated judgments. (Chodos et al., 2006). Political parties often elect a party representative, whose primary role is to maintain party discipline and make sure that the given members support the party on the legislature's floor. In liberal democracies, strict party discipline refers to party leaders' influence over parliamentary members in the legislature parties is critical for all governmental systems that permit major parties to hold power since it is often a decisive factor in the actual running of the government and the entire democratic landscape. The degree of discipline and coherence of Canadian parliamentary party groupings are uneven. The House of Commons in Canada votes strictly by the use of their parties, with minimal disagreement compared to the United Kingdom. However, historic Political parties in Canada have been ideologically divided, in that coherence relying on intimate relations and loyalty rather than standard ideological connections. The introduction of new political parties in 1993 altered the established pattern, but the disparities between younger and older parties are more based on the levels of experience rather than kind. This paper hypothesizes that the tendencies are related to Canadian parties “fluid membership” bases, which tend to enhance central power. As a result, parties are disciplined and relatively unified but need more ideological direction and consistency. Party discipline benefits the ruling party, and the opposing party since it gives a stable and cohesive party from which to identify each other in the upcoming election campaigns (Savoie, p. 48). The opposing party must be united within themselves to successfully criticize the legislative and the administration and demonstrate to the people that the ruling power might be weak. Party discipline becomes resourceful by ensuring that loss does not result from internal disagreement or conflict. As a result, rigorous party discipline favors the opposition by granting them permission to try to establish a cohesive group that strives to provide a viable solution to the voters. Party discipline is also upheld via loyalty, the restriction of behavior and language, and punishments against members who contradict the party rules. According to Reid, politics in Canada is sometimes compared to a football team in that, each individual plays a function that serves the interests of the entire team. This implies that the party rely on trust and loyalty, tight coordination from members, and must preserve the faith that each member of parliament will fulfill their electoral responsibilities. When the parties are considered in this perspective, a team member must collaborate with the political party to achieve its objectives, despite of their own opinions. Members of parliament now have the essential chance to communicate constituent issues within their parties without the lame light of the social media, interest organizations, or the opposing side scrutinizing their ideas or convictions. All members can debate concerns and requests in secret in caucus. These are not whipped debates, nor are they carefully choreographed discussions in the House of Commons (Reid, 1993, p. 2). The forum allows party leaders to defend their decisions to their party members and earn their support. The leader of each party is answerable to their party in the caucus. If members feel like the leader is not meeting their needs of their constituents or the Canadian people, they can be voted out of the political party. This is a clear example of how party discipline helps govern the members of Parliament in their parties. Through elections, responsible governance offers the voter enormous ability to make decisions about Canada's future. Parties are held responsible to the general population for the reasons listed below. If the population considers that the leadership is not serving their ambitions and that the they are unfit to lead them, they can vote accordingly during elections. This system guarantees that the government follows the actions and policies put forward by the Parliament. If the party discipline is relaxed, there will be no party to hold accountable for their activities, and voters will be unable to vote efficiently in elections (Franks, 1987). Giving MPs additional voting power would be detrimental to the constitutional principle of responsible governance and leadership. To combat this, the parliament provides several initiatives for members to vote in accordance with party norms, as well as consequences for member of parliament who vote contrary to the party's position. In Canadian politics, voting discipline only sometimes prevails. Party lines and party allegiance began to crystallize during the latter two decades of the nineteenth century. Until then, a sizable proportion of elected members were independents, or "locus fish," as John A. Macdonald dubbed them. Members were not interested about working together to attain party goals; their principal purpose was to be on the winning side in order to get as many advantages for their voters as possible. The party whips maintain party discipline in parliamentary voting. According to Professor Martin Westmacott, their responsibilities include, among other things, controlling dissent, fostering cohesion, acting like the "sounding board" and determining if a compromise can find the middle when the party's position and that of an individual member clash. They guarantee that members attend all key House divisions and vote along party rules. Various punishments may be enforced on members who refuse to follow the party whip. Party associates may isolate dissidents; deny party funds and organizational support in election campaigns; decree over cabinet promotion; deny adequate office space and staff; overlook them as members of prestigious parliamentary committees or traveling parliamentary delegations; deny the opportunity to ask a question during question session; refuse party assistance in performing services for constituents; or expel them from the caucus. In principle, a party leader's most dramatic option for disciplining delinquent members is to dissolve the parliament and call for an election. Few members prefer "safe" seats, and no member enjoys the thought of having to compete for a position. Party discipline ensures that the government's legislative agenda will be passed intact. On the other hand, a schism in the party may cost the party control of the legislature or, at the very least, major political humiliation. Over the last century, party discipline in Canadian legislatures has increased dramatically. Only 20% of elected members of parliament voted with their parties’ 100% of the time in the early 1900s. In the last 10 years, however, MPs have voted against their party less than 1% of the time. Only 4 to 5 percent of the people of Canada prioritize the natural candidates, a substantial influence of this mass uniformity. However, statistics show that voter preferences for local candidates are important in less than 15% of elections. As a result, Canada has always been seen as a democratic republic with the most stringent party discipline. As a result, many Canadians feel their elected official is nothing more than a glorified marketing mouthpiece. Party cohesion is a vital aspect of a cohesive administration. Party unity is, in reality, required to uphold the idea of a 'responsible government.' According to one writer, strong parties built on strong consensus are critical to the smooth operation of responsible governance and the Canadian state. Indeed, it contends that the member of parliament is voted in to serve "as a member of a certain political party" rather than just as a "representative to his or her voters." According to the authors, governments can more successfully carry out the duties given to them by the electorate when there is party discipline. Otherwise, it would be detrimental to the advancement or passage of legislation and might be decisive for the party, especially if members are permitted to vote on the whims of their people. It boils down to allowing pressure groups, lobbyists, or interest groups to persuade particular MPs vs allowing the government to act in the best interests of the population at large. The case for loosening party discipline is made on the other side of the debate. Backbenchers in Parliament have likely had this issue on their minds the longest. Some sometimes criticize party discipline as being less democratic or even undemocratic. These opposition lawmakers seek a means of carrying out their duties as the elected representatives of their voters. They contend that after being elected, members of both the opposition and the ruling parties serve as voting automatons for the party leader. Some of them also believe that the pressure put on them by the...