Canadian Government and Politics (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Canadian Government and Politics: Final Exam
Essay 1: Responsible Government
Responsible government can be defined as a parliamentary regime where the Congress is the ultimate authority for both executive action and legislative action. Therefore, it embodies the principle of accountability to parliament which consists of people elected to represent the electorate. In a regime that is founded on responsible government, together with disciplined and strong parties, the cabinet of that nation emerges as the dominant political institution (Malcolmson, 48). It means that such a government is held accountable by the people rather than their representatives because the government will answer the people for its successes or failures. While the executive cabinet will dominate in terms of decision making, its powers are granted by people through the leaders that they elect to the legislative branch. As per the constitution, the cabinet wields its power but its control of the legislature and the executive is granted by the conventions of responsible government. Even though the constitution vests executive and legislative powers in separate hands, fusion of such powers is often seen to happen under responsible government regime as the cabinet dominates. Thus, one can best define responsible government as a regime whereby the powers of eth executive and the legislature are fused together in the form of a cabinet whose accountability is given to an assembly of people elected to represent the electorate.
In looking at the differences between regimes based on responsible government and those based on separation of powers, several distinctions emerge. The political goal which inspires the separation of powers principle is liberty. This principle is founded on the belief that placing executive and legislative powers in different hands minimizes the probability of the government turning into a tyrannical one. The United States is one country that applies the separation of powers principle (Malcolmson et al, 62). In such a country, even if the positions of executive and legislature are held by members of the same party, the way they relate is based on rivalry rather than on cooperation. As a result, the liberty associated with separation of powers makes such a regime less efficient. On the other hand, a regime that is founded on the responsible government principle is more efficient especially in a majority government. Since powers have been fused, a small group of executive and legislative members will exercise those powers (p.62). For example, once a cabinet gains the support of the majority in parliament, there is often little to stand on its path. For instance, when the Cabinet of Pearson decided to bring on the universal medical insurance policy in Canada, such was adopted smoothly and quickly.
Furthermore, in the issue of accountability, it appears that democratic accountability is more when separation of powers is applied than in responsible government. Under the separation of powers, leading legislative and executive officers are elected by the people but in responsible government, only legislative officers are directly elected. Besides, legislative officers are able to respond more directly to the electorate in a regime of separation of powers than in responsible government. In fact, in responsible government, when members of parliament fail to support their party, they do so without regard of the wishes of the electorate because they value their party more than their constituents (Malcolmson, 64). Also, with regards to voters being able to judge the work of their elected servants, it is easy for them to make such judgments in responsible government because they know who is responsible for a certain aspect of the nation’s affairs. In a regime of separation of powers, the electorate cannot easily know who is responsible for certain thing is happening in the nation. For example, when the nation is doing well, the president and the Congress often attribute the success to themselves and when the economy is failing, the president and the congress will never easily accept responsibility. Instead, the president or the Congress will blame the failure on one branch of government.
In comparing the two regimes more abstractly, it can be said that responsible government is more superior compared to separation of powers. Such a case is extremely compelling in this new century whereby people in different parts of the world have been subjected to tyranny of government. The American founders expected subsequent governments to effectively handle matters that relate to the economic and social life of their people. It is probably this reason why popular figures in America tend to advocate certain reforms in a manner that often moves the regime towards the side of responsible government (Malcolmson, 64). Yet, it must be known that politics does not occur in a vacuum and lack of proper consideration may end up being dangerous for the people. It must be known that responsible government has its merits and demerits. For instance, when it comes to the management of tensions which arise in nations, responsible government tends to be inferior to separation of powers. Canada is becoming more diverse as more immigrants are coming from all over the world. As a result, a regime that can manage the tensions which could arise due to the increase in racial, religious, gender and other forms of diversity may not be easy to handle for a regime that is based on the principle of responsible government.
In conclusion, responsible government is clearly a government responsible to the people. It is dominated by a cabinet which relies on the support of an assembly or elected people rather than their representatives or a monarch. Canada is the best example of responsible government where the power of the cabinet reigns supreme. In the above discussion it is evident that the cabinet consists of members of parliament who have confidence of the greater number of members of their party. When there is a majority consisting of members of parliament from one party forming the cabinet, the members of parliament will often loyally continue to support the cabinet’s proposals and policies in order to maintain their party in power. This behavior is different from what happens under separation of powers whereby the responsibilities of government are divided into distinct branches in a manner that makes sure that no branch will exercise the core functions of another. Therefore, the core principle of separation of powers is liberty. A government under separation of powers cannot be tyrannical due to the checks and balances that exist between its branches. Nevertheless, responsible government and a regime based on separation of powers have their merits and demerits which affect political practices such as voting and policy making.
Essay 2: Federalism
In a federal system, authority of the government is divided into two levels as per the law of the constitution. It means that there is no level of government which is seen as sovereign authority. Each of the levels receives its power from the constitution of the country. Therefore, the government is subordinate to the constitution. The system is thus guided by the principle that the legal jurisdiction over issues of national concern to the legislature of the country, issues of local and regional concern to the state legislature or the provincial legislatures (Thomas et al, 109). At times, the two government levels share their jurisdiction. It is thus, important to note that in a federal government as that of Canada, state governments and provincial governments do not look upon the national government in the same way that it happens for local governments beholding unitary system. While power in a unitary system often proceeds from the center, in a federal system it is divided between the provincial governments and the central government. Canadian national government is a federal government since it is the government of the entire federal union.
When it comes to the evolution of the Canadian federal system, it is notable that it was first established in the Quebec Conference of 1864. The resolutions of the conference involved a compromise between the people who wanted the government to be federal and those who wanted the power of government to be vested in the various provinces. As such, this compromise premised the federation on the constitution of the British Empire which was the colonial power ruling that territory under responsible government (Malcomsolm et al, 167). Confederation was the beginning of Canadian federalism. The main objective of the union was to ensure economic growth for the territory. Other goals included to expand the territory and to establish strong national defense. Howbeit, there were people who wanted the existing governments and boundaries to remain intact. While French people were the majority in Quebec, this situation brought about the conflict in which they did not want to surrender their powers to the hands of one government. It is for this reason that federalism was seen as an important compromise.
The first prime minister of Canada, Sir John MacDonald did not fully give his strength to federalism. He was for the idea of unitary state where provinces were expected to wield their authority from it. A unitary state would mean that provinces would be inferior to the central government. A major factor at that time was the fact that there was a civil war in America. As such, the states south of America seceded from the federal government (Thomas et al, 172). During that time, there was worsening of relations between Anglophone and francophone Canadians which further undermined the Conservative Party of the Prime...