Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[myata]

In other words, now that your stance on non-elected heads of state with a role in democratic government has been proven ill founded, and your inability to distinguish between "similar" and "identical" has been brought to light, instead of admitting your errors, you choose to chastise others for not following the rules you just retroactively changed. Sad.

Agree, sad indeed is your inability to see the difference between "similar" and "quite opposite". As specially highlighted for easy comprehension, the monarch in the aforementioned system refrains from playing active political role, and there's no indication of reserve powers and prerogatives like our GG/PM ability to reset the Parliament whenether they like, killing all active legislation, investigations and commissions, etc. What does exist in that system is the Parliament's explicit constitutional power to keep the government responsible and accountable, and practical and efficient independence and separation of powers, preventing any one branch of government from dominating political process.

If this is "similar" to what we have here, where PM can shut down the Parliament in about 5 min by simply picking up the phone and without any explanations or processes, then cow is "similar" to the nightingale, Afghanistan is a democracy just like Holland or Ireland and so on, everybody got the idea.

The above three points are the only ones not identical in the Dutch and Canadian Westminster parliamentary systems. The first two are, I think, worth considering for Canada; the last one, though, I find problematic. How can a minister explain himself to parliament if not from his seat during question period? And, must voters in his riding vote twice in a row, once for the representative removed to Cabinet, and then again for another representative to replace him? Sounds odd.

No, the real difference is independence of the Parliament and separation, checks and balances of powers that allow each branch to do its work without interfering with the others. This is what's really different from here, where the executive branch dominates political process, either via majority support in the Parliament, or through legacy "prerogatives" when not. The historical mission and current state of affairs is for the Parliament to serve the government in power, and its "independence" and "supremacy" is worth about as much as the paper that book you're reading was printed on, just stop by the Hill to see this version of democracy in action.

[g_bambino]

As specially highlighted for easy comprehension, the monarch in the aforementioned system refrains from playing active political role

As is the case for us. The only differences that both exist and are germane to this discussion are related to parliamentary procedure, two of which I said I thought were worth considering for adoption here. That you completely missed the latter highlights how you shouldn't lecture others on comprehension when you've no talent for it yourself.

[myata]

As is the case for us. The only differences that both exist and are germane to this discussion are related to parliamentary procedure, two of which I said I thought were worth considering for adoption here. That you completely missed the latter highlights how you shouldn't lecture others on comprehension when you've no talent for it yourself.

Well if we take that view, then wouldn't all those reserve powers and prerogatives become little more than thinly disguised mandate for the government to dominate political process in the country, undermining other democratic institutions and making a joke of the notions of independence and balance of powers? Little surprise that fewer and fewer voters become interested in this political circus.

Rather than borrowing tricks and gymmicks we should do away with unnecessary powers and privileges and modernise our political system to reflect the times. By creating real and working balance of powers, allowing coalitions of parties to become the norm of democracy and some form of proportional representation that would reflect the actual political spectrum of the country rather than its distorted reflection through a 200 year old dusty prism.

[g_bambino]

Well if we take that view, then wouldn't all those reserve powers and prerogatives become little more than thinly disguised mandate for the government to dominate political process in the country, undermining other democratic institutions and making a joke of the notions of independence and balance of powers?

No.

[myata]

No, they are the token and instrument of that "vibrant", etc democracy all the others should be aspiring to. Aka "shut up and listen, big brother (the government) Knows Best".

With that, perfected by centuries to absolute and final immutability kind of democracy who needs the cr.. like defined constitutional roles, independence and balance of political institutions, checks and balances, proportional representation, system of political coalitions, etc, right?

[g_bambino]

[T]hey are the token and instrument of that "vibrant", etc democracy all the others should be aspiring to.

The above is riddled with undefined terms and is thus impossible to address.

[W]ho needs the... defined constitutional roles, independence and balance of political institutions, checks and balances, proportional representation, system of political coalitions, etc, right?

The above is another loaded question and is thus impossible to answer honestly.

[c/e]

Edited February 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

The above is another loaded question and is thus impossible to answer honestly.

What questions remain to be answered honestly, though?

Is Canada's political system dominated by the executive power? The history of the last year should give a clear and obvious answer to anybody who cares to see. This minority government has done all of the above, i.e obstructed work of Parliamentary commissions and "independent" watchdogs, undermined and fired "independent" watchdogs, refused the Parliament access to information, termnated Parliamentary investigations and suspended the Parlament. What other power or privilege could it wish for, and in what other way could our presumably "independent" and "supreme" Parliament be trumped and danced upon?

Should anything be done about it? This question would have to be answered by the people, and the answer would determine the future course (and eventual fate) of our democracy.

[ToadBrother]

You'd think that volume (or strong epithets) could obscure or even entirely eliminate substance, and yet anybody with a slightest clue about democracy would instantly see the (lightyears) difference between "elected by popular vote" and "elected by nobody".

I already said that on that level of discussion everything is the same, everything is a vibrant and blah modern democracy, Afghanistan, Canada, China and Bhutan. No further argument.

To T-B: I'll try to spell it one more time and very slowly:

1) The President of Irish republic is elected by popular vote and for that reason has independent and sovereign democratic legitimacy.

Except that he is, just like the Queen of Great of Britain our or GG, bound to follow the advice of the government of the day (the exception, just like in our system, being when a government has lost confidence).

2) Their powers are explicitly defined in the Constitution including the one to reject the advice of executive in certain circumstances.

And that circumstance is a loss of confidence, just like ours.

3) I could not find any reference of the power of prorogation granted to the executive or the President. Note that even it is (we'll need a constitutional expert on Irish political system to confirm that), then it would likely to formally fall into the Presidents responsibilities, and then the already mentioned qualification would make possibility of prorogation to avoid confidence motion highly questionnable. At least to the extent that would make a government considering such option think twice.

Since the President of Ireland was essentially a successor of the Irish Free State, which operated as a Dominion like Canada or Australia, I'm sure prorogation is still there, and still operates under the same principle. I doubt very highly that the Irish PM has to ask Parliament for permission to close out a session of Parliament, and I see no reference to it anywhere in the constitution. You'll note the German constitution explicitely gives the German parliament the power to override the Government on this matter, which goes to the point that the norm for parliamentary democracies that when and for how long parliament sits is largely up to the executive acting on the advice of the government.

In Canada, being unelected GG lacks democratic legitimacy, and therefore cannot play sovereign political role with any credibility. Her role is reduced to being a formal conduit for the will of the executive, with the effect that no meaningful checks or qualifications on the powers granted to the executive exist.

And here we go into the region of pure ideology. You have yet to trace any substantial differences in the Irish parliament's functioning as opposed to ours (I'm sure there are some, just as our Parliament isn't a xerox copy of Westminster), all in all, most of the Westminster-based parliaments, even India's, function on largely the same principles, and with the same essential "joint executive" model where the actual executive is largely bound by the decisions of the government. I'm not even going to bother getting into a debate over legitimacy, because it's a pointless debate. Our system has been recognized since 1867 as the legitimate governing system of our country. The elected officials still make the decisions, the age of absolutism died when Parliament offered the throne to William and Mary.

[ToadBrother]

What questions remain to be answered honestly, though?

Is Canada's political system dominated by the executive power? The history of the last year should give a clear and obvious answer to anybody who cares to see. This minority government has done all of the above, i.e obstructed work of Parliamentary commissions and "independent" watchdogs, undermined and fired "independent" watchdogs, refused the Parliament access to information, termnated Parliamentary investigations and suspended the Parlament. What other power or privilege could it wish for, and in what other way could our presumably "independent" and "supreme" Parliament be trumped and danced upon?

And yet the Opposition could still throw them out. Oh, that's right, you don't like elections.

Should anything be done about it? This question would have to be answered by the people, and the answer would determine the future course (and eventual fate) of our democracy.

The people already made it pretty damned clear twenty years ago that they don't want any constitutional tinkering.

[ToadBrother]

OK, as there seem to be little interest in detail analysis of aforementioned and allegedly "similar" and "Westminister" democracies, let's consider one more example, from your own list, and round it up at that. And so, political system of Netherlands has these "similarities" (as easily found on: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Netherlands ), Parlink interparliament network and a number of other easily available resources):

- Coalition governments has been a norm since 1900. A well defined process exists to establish government coalition and create coalition government.

That's because of the electoral system. That's a separate discussion entirely. I mean, New Zealand uses a form of proportional representation, and yet has no written constitution, and when Parliament is completely supreme in the older sense of the word (even New Zealand courts are completely subject to Acts of Parliament).

- The Parliament has a set sitting schedule.

That is one recommendation we talked about, but it still raises the problem that the executive is responsible for recalling Parliament in the case of a national emergency, and that recall would happen on the advise of the government.

- The Parliament has constitutional privilege to question government and access all documents.

That has been a feature of our system for centuries. In fact, one of the major reasons that Charles I prorogued Parliament and began the Personal Rule was that Parliament was so highly critical of his foreign policy and constantly haranguing his ministers. You're ignorance of history is showing again.

- The Parliament can vote no confidence in an individual minister or the entire government, causing resignation thereof. Vote of no confidence in the government causes its resignation and commonly (but not necessarily), a new election.

Probably wouldn't be that hard to adapt, since, nominally at least, ministers are appointed by the GG on the advice of the Prime Minister.

- The government has constitutional privilege to request dissolution of the Parliament, but it has not been used in the last 100 years.

I can well imagine in a country where coalition governments are the norm that formal dissolution requests aren't common. Still, you seem awfully willing to let it go at "the government hasn't asked for it in a hundred years", when your complaints that our system doesn't give sufficient safeguards are usually where you handwave away observations that the GG flexing his or her constitutional muscles are exceedingly rare in our system.

- The Queen plays formal and ceremonial role in setting up and functioning of government but has refrained from being involved in the politics since after World War 2.

Which is considerably shorter period of time than in our system. The last time the executive in any Westminster parliament actually refused assent was John C. Bowen refusing (actually technically he delayed) consent on a Social Credit bill that would have interfered with Alberta's free press (which rather goes to the point that our system works). The last time a British Monarch even pondered refusing assent was George V in 1914 over the Government of Ireland Bill, and in the end, he acted on the advice of his government.

Sounds like our system has even less intrusion of the executive on the affairs of government than the Dutch. I guess our system must be more democratic, eh?

- The ministers of the government have to resign their seats in the Parliament.

You could probably do that here without constitutional change. Ministers don't have to be MPs. BC had, during the early part of Glen Clark's tenure as Premier of BC, an unelected minister. I don't see the practicality of it, myself. It certainly wouldn't prevent a minister from improperly helping out the people in his riding.

I'll leave up to the readers to judge how "similar" it is to what we have here, but I could make these conclusions:

In large part, pretty similar. Similar is not the same as identical.

1) The Constitutional Monarch in Netherlands plays only formal and ceremonial role and does not get involved into active politics.

Same as here, and certainly the same as the British system, where, particularly since the time of Victoria, the Monarch has not directly involved themselves in political affairs, remaining, as it were, above the frey.

2) There is real and functional separation of powers, checks and balances defined both constitutionally and by convention that prevent any one branch of power from interfering with and obstructing the others, most notably, government obstructing the work of the Parliament as has been the case in Canada recently (Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E).

I see nothing that is substantially different from ours. The government still advises the executive, and the executive is still bound save in very limited circumstances by the will of the government.

BTW while doing this research I stumbled across a point that even among constitutional monarchies the system of "reserve powers and prerogatives" is only common in the British Commonwealth. I haven't found many references to use of these instruments in New Zealand (especially in the more recent period after introduction of proportional elections), but do recall that it's used in Australia.

Certainly, when used commonly in daily political practice like in this country, these powers give significant and arguably, overreaching influence to the executive branch thus undermining independence of the Parliament and integrity of democratic political system. The example of Dutch system does nothing to dispel the point that these powers are incompatible with the principles of modern and responsible democracy and should be removed, formally or through convention that governments, and especially the minority ones should refrain from using them.

The concept of Reserve Powers is common to most governing systems. Even in the US, the President holds at least one reserve power dating back to Medieval times, and that is the power to pardon.

Your problem is that you don't really understand what reserve powers are, their history, and thus can't map them. When I read the Indian or Irish constitution, I'm seeing the executive holding reserve powers not unlike that of the Queen or the GG. They may not be called reserve powers, but they are certain powers held by the executive to be used in the event of a constitutional crisis.

As to the more general notion of Royal Prerogatives, even the Dutch system clearly has them, as you keep pointing out "they haven't been used in a long long time". Do you even read what you write?

[g_bambino]

What questions remain to be answered honestly, though?

In terms of your incoherent ramblings: many.

Is Canada's political system dominated by the executive power?

That depends on who you ask and what they compare it to. In some ways, yes; I've said as much and explained why I think so. In other ways, no; the relationship of our executive to the other branches of government is quite similar to the same relationship in other Westminster parliamentary systems.

This minority government has... obstructed work of Parliamentary commissions and "independent" watchdogs, undermined and fired "independent" watchdogs, refused the Parliament access to information, termnated Parliamentary investigations and suspended the Parlament.

And therein lies your main concern: not democracy, but smearing the present Conservative government and constraining them, and them alone, with constitutional changes, presumably only because you personally dislike their policies. Note how you clearly say, and have only ever said, "this" minority government has performed [insert evil deed here], when, if you were truly concerned about the maintenance of parliamentary democracy, you'd also be drawing from the litany of examples of previous Liberal governments - both majority and minority - doing many of the same things you apparently abhor.

No, instead of being non-partisan in your rail against the system, you've tellingly placed the present opposition aside as blameless victims. With your evident awareness of the age of the system in mind, it can only then be summised that you presume the Liberals, when in power, laboured by noble choice to govern faily within and against a system built by Conservatives to be unfair and draconian. Odd, then, that they were in power for most of the 20th century but chose never to do a single thing about this supposedly medieval, democracy-strangling system of ours.

In fact, nobody has ever seriously considered changing the main elements of our parliamentary construct. Don't you ever question why that might be? Don't you feel rather alone with your ignorance and kooky theories?

Should anything be done about it? This question would have to be answered by the people, and the answer would determine the future course (and eventual fate) of our democracy.

Indeed.

[+]

Edited February 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

In terms of your incoherent ramblings: many.

Really? And I thought all was nice and clear because you forgot to mention any (

That depends on who you ask and what they compare it to. In some ways, yes; I've said as much and explained why I think so. In other ways, no; the relationship of our executive to the other branches of government is quite similar to the same relationship in other Westminster parliamentary systems.

I thought that we already addressed some of these draustic "similarities" and I'm not in the repetitive mood. Whether real or proclaimed similarities exist, domination of political process by one branch of government is not good for any democracy that is claiming to be functional and transparent, not to mention active and vibrant.

And therein lies your main concern: not democracy, but smearing the present Conservative government and constraining them, and them alone, with constitutional changes, presumably only because you personally dislike their policies. Note how you clearly say, and have only ever said, "this" minority government has performed [insert evil deed here], when, if you were truly concerned about the maintenance of parliamentary democracy, you'd also be drawing from the litany of examples of previous Liberal governments - both majority and minority - doing many of the same things you apparently abhor.

Nope you got it wrong and through none of my doing because I stated multiple times that I consider political domination a negative thing regardless of how it happens, through majority clout or use of executive prerogatives disguised into historical robes. The example of this government was obviously very useful as a factual demonstratoin of powers and privileges available to even minority government, and if it was Liberals rather than CPC abusing them, it would be equally inacceptable.

Which is exactly why I favour modifying the system over replacing the government as suggested by some posters, because it would leave the obvious flaws in the system open to abuse by future governments regardless of their partisan flavours.

I'll say more, if the system is not modified in a meaningful way in the near future to bring in more active representation of realities in the society, the federal politics could lose much more interest and participation among voters and eventually become quite irrelevant.

[g_bambino]

Whether real or proclaimed similarities exist, domination of political process by one branch of government is not good for any democracy that is claiming to be functional and transparent, not to mention active and vibrant.

And still you fail to prove that any such domination exists beyond a problem with MPs weakened by internal party operations, or perhaps a lack of regularity to the parliamentary sessions. Otherwise, for someone who says they're not in the mood for repetition, you sure do repeat the same hyperbole over and over again, always with the same vitriol for the present government and a free pass to the opposition.

[ToadBrother]

I'll say more, if the system is not modified in a meaningful way in the near future to bring in more active representation of realities in the society, the federal politics could lose much more interest and participation among voters and eventually become quite irrelevant.

Yes yes yes, the whole problem is the system. If only we had a better system...

Voter turnouts are shrinking all over the industrialized world, and in all manner of political systems. The problem isn't the political system, it's the politicians. No system can be created that won't be vulnerable to the misbehavior of the political classes.

[myata]

No system can be created that won't be vulnerable to the misbehavior of the political classes.

And so we're back all the way to Square #0. Let's see how this strategem would work in other humanly undertakings:

"No shoes can be created that would feel perfectly comfortable at all times and in all weathers, so I'll stick with my old and stinky pair of wooden clogs"

"No perfectly fitting clothes can be made so I'll just keep using my old furs"

"No unbreakable cart can be made so I'll just keep moving this stuff on my back".

Shall we continue?

Or, for some divine reason our political system has been created in the dawn of political times in complete and perfect form, requiring no adjustement or modifications till end of times?

[ToadBrother]

And so we're back all the way to Square #0. Let's see how this strategem would work in other humanly undertakings:

"No shoes can be created that would feel perfectly comfortable at all times and in all weathers, so I'll stick with my old and stinky pair of wooden clogs"

"No perfectly fitting clothes can be made so I'll just keep using my old furs"

"No unbreakable cart can be made so I'll just keep moving this stuff on my back".

Shall we continue?

Or, for some divine reason our political system has been created in the dawn of political times in complete and perfect form, requiring no adjustement or modifications till end of times?

I'm not going to get into yet another circular argument with you. You have repeatedly exhibited an astonishing ignorance of our system, of other systems, and an utter unwillingness to do anything other than endlessly repeat yourself. You tried to bring up the Dutch system as some sort of vastly different system, and yet, other than the dubious advantage that Ministers are detached from those they represent, I see nothing of any particular advantage. The powers of the monarch seem largely in line with those find in countries like Spain, Belgium and the UK, and the Commonwealth countries where the British monarch is the sovereign, where the hereditary executive retains some potent reserve powers, but almost always exercised under the advice and guidance of the elected government.

As to adjustments, I have patiently explained and reexplained that the system itself is not at fault for the difficulties in change, but that the regionalism which dominates this country and makes constitutional talks extremely dangerous to national unity are what render the system somewhat inflexible on amendment grounds.

You ignore every point. You don't even read what you write, condemning our system because some of the safeguards are traditional rather than codified, and the bragging up the Dutch system, which works exactly the same way! You have no sense of proportion. Small differences in how countries function are blown into monstrous divides, and heck, even where there is no difference, you still see one (ie. your silly claims about the Irish constitution).

Let's just cut to the chase here. I want you to explain precisely how you would bring about constitutional change in this country, and how the end result would be any different than what happened during Mulroney's tenure, and the aftershocks like the 1995 Quebec referendum which almost saw our country split up and saw the installment of what now seems to be a permanent separatist bloc in Parliament.

Cut the petulance, cut the T-shirt slogan ideological ranting. I want you to demonstrate that you have actually thought about any of this, and that you even have the vaguest notion of recent constitutional history in our country.

[jbg]

Ridings mean nothing to the Conservative Party of Canada. They are alienating their own people for their corporate agenda, and their Republican backers in the United States.

I'm a bit mystified, as usual. The out of power U.S. Republican Party can put a government into power in Canada?

[William Ashley]

I'm a bit mystified, as usual. The out of power U.S. Republican Party can put a government into power in Canada?

Although I won't take the bait on this flame. First off it is Bushes Secretary of Defence still secretary of defence so this type of answer is a little secondary - second of all, congress isn't exactly absent of republicans...

Also there are various republican state govenors - so "out of power" wouldn't exactly be accurate.

[jbg]

First off it is Bushes Bush's Secretary of Defence Defense still secretary of defence Secretary of Defense (learn to spell and capitalize) so this type of answer is a little secondary - second of all, congress isn't exactly absent of republicans...Also there are various republican state govenors - so "out of power" wouldn't exactly be accurate.

Yes, but he reports to Osama Obama, not Bush so he has no policies of his own. And Republican governors, what few of them there are, have little role in picking Canada's government.

[Smallc]

Yes, but he reports to Osama Obama, not Bush so he has no policies of his own. And Republican governors, what few of them there are, have little role in picking Canada's government.

Defence isn't an incorrect spelling, though I suppose it isn't correct in this particular context.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but he reports to Osama Obama, not Bush so he has no policies of his own. And Republican governors, what few of them there are, have little role in picking Canada's government.

True. Would Michael Ignatieff become PM of Canada, then Obama could run the whole show. It works both ways if they want to play that game.

[William Ashley]

Yes, but he reports to Osama Obama, not Bush so he has no policies of his own. And Republican governors, what few of them there are, have little role in picking Canada's government.

If I want to spell defence the Canadian way I will.

Second your lack off knowledge of powers of post shows you need to educate yourself and come back to the forum.

I'll only say Gates position is very powerful, he has the ability to authorize nuclear strikes on his own, something only the president can also do. Also Congress is a very powerful organization, and congresspersons are powerful people.

Governors are also very powerful people.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'll only say Gates position is very powerful, he has the ability to authorize nuclear strikes on his own, something only the president can also do. Also Congress is a very powerful organization, and congresspersons are powerful people.

Governors are also very powerful people.

....all having nothing to do with Canada...unless SECDEF decides to nuke Toronto.

[William Ashley]

....all having nothing to do with Canada...unless SECDEF decides to nuke Toronto.

You can downplay but the republican party in the US isn't "out of power" and "out of influence".

[bush_cheney2004]

You can downplay but the republican party in the US isn't "out of power" and "out of influence".

It is when it comes to Canadian politics....blaming George Bush won't work anymore.