Not only will the prime minister have to maintain confidence within the house, they also must maintain the support from their party. The prime minister must then become more transparent and accountable to their party because now the MPs collectively have a voice. Debate will be greatly encouraged within the house and public policy can be more effectively scrutinized as the prime minister will have to thoroughly plan out his/her actions as a misstep might cost them the support of their party, and therefore their position (Jarvis and Turnbull, 2012). Without a proper and effective check, there is little to stop the prime minister from using his power to advance their interests. This contributes to an erosion of the democratic system in Canada …show more content…
Klein remained in politics for quite a long time and his humorous personality made him a popular political figure (Harrison, 2013). In addition, he introduced several well received legislations throughout his career that helped bolster the Albertan economy (Harrison, 2013). However his success would not last and near the end of his career he had suffered several damaging blows to his political image. In 2002, Klein’s government introduced a number of taxes that were not taken very well by Albertans and an increase in health-care premiums and a teachers strike further reduced his popularity (Harrison, 2013). Coupled with accusations of alcoholism and erratic behavior, Klein’s ability to govern effectively came under attack. In the leadership review of 2006, all these problems culminated in Klein receiving only 55% of the support from his party (Harrison, 2013). This was a dramatic drop in support from previous reviews and the message to Klein was clear. The crushed Klein took a couple of days for himself and then eventually resigned as premier of Alberta on December 2, 2006 (Harrison, 2013). Edward Stelmach was voted in by the Progressive Conservatives as its new leader and was elected the new Premier of Alberta afterwards. Klein’s loss of support in the leadership review was the final blow that led to him stepping down as premier and party leader. Again, this …show more content…
The reserve powers they are constitutionally able to wield and the grasp they have on their party gives them little formidable opposition. The prime minister having too much power is a genuine concern and to help ease the conscious of the public and political figures in the Canadian government, checks should be instituted to prevent these powers from being abused (Kuzniak, 2010). Leadership reviews are one possible method to help limit party leader and prime ministerial power. Not one method of governing an entire country like Canada will be perfect, responsible government is no exception, so making it work as best as possible is the most practical solution. Clark, Klein, and Horwath, are three party leaders in which a leadership review has proven to be effective in ensuring that the most suitable party leader is in power and that the party leader will always remain accountable to the party (Morrow, 2014; Chase, 2013; Harrison, 2013). Although cases involving ruling prime ministers were not examined, these cases can be easily paralleled because the party leader that commands the majority of confidence within the House will become prime minister. There are several other instances in which a leadership review has proven effective in political parties, though these examples detail its capability quite clearly. The necessary approval from the party ensures that the party leader will never stray too far away
idea of turning Canada back to its original roots. He compares Harper's government system with Pierre Trudeau’s. Arguing about the struggles and failures of
Thesis: Sam Steele should be the next Prime Minister of Canada and representative of this great nation as he has great personal attributes of loyalty, inspiration, and leadership skills
Stephen Harper, the leader of the Alliance, made the decision with the leader of Progressive Conservative, to unite and form the current Conservative Party of Canada. The strategy of combining two right-wing parties was a success because the votes for the right-wings were splitted and kept the Liberal in power. Stephen Harper was elected to be the Prime Minister of Canada after he was elected to be the party leader; the Party was in power for 9 years.
First-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system in general allows candidates to win who may not have a majority of the vote. It privileges big parties and majorities at the cost of smaller parties and coalitions. It also favours parties with strong regional concentrations over parties whose electoral base is more spread out. This is Canada’s current election system and for the past couple of years. In the years that Harper has been in power, he has won majority of the seats with less than 50 percent of the votes. In fact, in 2011, “Stephen Harper won a majority government with 54.1 percent of the seats and only 39.6 percent of the total vote” (Aucoin 161). Harper was able to form a majority government without a majority of the vote and he had a plurality of votes that was less than 50 percent. Canada has been electing its government in this way and the winning party does not hold the majority of the votes, with a few exceptions. In terms of changing the election system, FPTP system is able to produce a clear majority and the majority that wins is able to produce a clear line of power through a majority government. Also, supporters of FPTP, such as Brian Crowly, say that clear lines of power are
Opposing the belief that a dominating leader is running Canada, Barker brings up several key realities of the Canadian government. He gives examples of several “… instances of other ministers taking action that reveal the limits prime-ministerial power,” (Barker 178). Barker conveys the fact that Canada is not bound by a dictatorial government, “…it seems that the prime minister cannot really control his individual ministers. At times, they will pursue agendas that are inconsistent with the prime minister’s actions,” (Barker 181). Both inside and outside government are a part of Canada and they can remind the prime minister that “…politics is a game of survival for all players,” (Barker 188). Barker refutes the misinterpretation of the Canadian government by acknowledging that a prime-ministerial government existing in Canada is an overstatement.
The prime minister has a significant amount of power within the Canadian government. Some of the sources of the prime minister’s powers are the number of seats in the House of Commons he and his party has, his ability to give push/give priority to certain government agendas, and his ability to appoint different governmental positions. For a politician to hold the office of PM his party must hold the majority of the seats in the house; this means that by convention his party must be in solidarity with his decisions, which gives the PM’s the loyal support of his party. Another power of the PM is the ability to put forward government agendas that they believe should be prioritized. The PM also has the ability to appoint people who they believe
In Canada, the Prime Minister has too much power, some PM take advantages of this power while others do not. The Prime Minister is the head of the party with a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. Some of the things that the PM is responsible for are: summons and dissolves, decides of the cabinet make up, advising the governor general, etc. All of these responsibilities allocated to the PM give him the absolute power. First, the PM has the ability to choose when to end the session of the parliament or simply dissolve it. The PM could use this power for his advantages. For example, Stephen Harper asked Michaëlle Jean to suspend the Parliament because he knew that a coalition was formed against him and could even lead to new elections.
In this essay, I will demonstrate that the Prime Minister is powerful and can cause many potential dangers by analyzing different elements inside and outside of our government over the period of different Prime Ministers throughout the Canadian political history.
There is a fundamental problem with the democratic process in Canada. This problem is rooted within our electoral system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system (MMP) at the federal level if we wish to see the progression of modern democracy. The failure to do so will result in a stagnant political system that is caught in the past and unable to rise to the contemporary challenges that representative democracies face. If Canada chooses to embrace the MMP electoral system it will reap the benefits of greater proportionality, prevent the centralization of power that is occurring in Parliament and among political parties through an increased
Now that you are up to date with currents events I will briefly touch on some strong point of the Canadian democratic system. Citizens in Canada indirectly hold power in a free electoral system and are given better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than other systems of government. The freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and the freedom of the media allow citizens to vote in favour of their own interest. Democracy in Canada is rooted on the grounds of equal rights; this gives people equality before the law, human rights, free and fair elections and so on. In comparison to the Third World, power is in the hands of the “Big Men”, the police and army are the ones who hold control not the people and where corruption is a norm, Canada may look like a utopia. Another strong point in the Canadian political system is everyone no matter race or sex has the right to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen over the age of eighteen. Until the 60s/70s parties would make up electoral boundaries this was done to increase the number of votes in that location this is called gerrymander, this was unfair because certain parties had an advantage over others. However, now under the Electoral Boundaries Commissions this problem does not occur and no party has the upper hand over another. Interestingly the
In fact, I just thought you would like to know that I applied at Oakland campus for the two missing courses, including pharmacology and pathophysiology.
In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.
Many people would like to believe that the president is the most powerful person in the world. However, the structure of America has put restraints on the president that a Prime Minister would not have. There are many differences between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. These differences include regulations, term of office, powers, and cultures. Throughout this paper you will learn that just being the leader of their country is about as similar as these two people get.
In 1971 when the Conservatives ended the Socred hold on power, the Conservative Party succeeded by “neutralizing ideology and focusing on ‘safe change,’ that is, a change of faces but not policies.” The 1971 election brought into office the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership of Peter Lougheed; Lougheed than served as premier until 1985, when he was replaced by Don Getty. In 1986 general election, Alberta PC win the election with 61 seats, NDP getting 16 seats, liberal getting 4 seats in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and Alberta PC also win 1989 general election of Alberta. Getty’s decision to resign in 1992 “ushered in the leadership election that provides the point of departure.” Alberta’s electoral history