ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Your question has no relation to a definion of democracy or democratic process. Whatever is my response it does not change the definition. Translation: No I can't. I'll wager I could find a dozen examples from republics in the last ten years. Our system of government has maintained responsible, democratic government in Canada alone for nearly 150 years, and throughout the other Realms as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Your question has no relation to a definion of democracy or democratic process. Whatever is my response it does not change the definition. Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. Wikipedia The Crown is covered in this part of the definition. Edited March 31, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Wikipedia The Crown is covered in this part of the definition. Yes, we've seen this before. A poster who has his own private definition of "democracy" under the strange delusion that it is an expansive, proscriptive definition. Heck, would Yegmann consider the President of India, who is chosen by the Indian Parliament, as a democratically-elected head of state? What about the President of the United States, who is chosen by an electoral college, and not directly by the electorate, as a democratically-elected head of state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Translation: No I can't. You are just avoiding presenting arguments on the subject, which I suspect you do not have. Our system of government has maintained responsible, democratic government in Canada alone for nearly 150 years, and throughout the other Realms as well. Great! But this passage does not cancel the fact that Canada is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy. That means we have combination of democracy and monarchy. Respectively some (vast majority) of governing procedures are democratic, but some are not. Edited March 31, 2011 by YEGmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) You are just avoiding presenting arguments on the subject, which I suspect you do not have. I don't appear to be the one avoiding anything. I've answered the questions. You're the one that couldn't cite any examples. Great! But this passage does not cancel the fact that Canada is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy. That means we have combination of democracy and monarchy. Respectively some (vast majority) of governing procedures are democratic, but some are not. The Monarchy, save in rare situations (which I have mentioned) is subject to the will of Parliament (the Bill of Rights, 1689). The Reserve Powers were left in place precisely to deal with unforeseen circumstances, like, say preventing a Bloc Quebecois government from forming. So successful has the basic system laid out in 1688-1689 by the Convention Parliament, which was seeking to make sure that the Stuart notions of absolutism could never be invoked again, that, with the addition of the cabinet system which came into existence in the late 18th century, that it has been copied by numerous republics and constitutional monarchies ever since. If you look at the Danish or Norwegian constitutional monarchies, or the German, Irish or Israeli parliamentary republics, you're looking at the children of the Glorious Revolution. Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) My understanding was that they did take the Oath.Sincerely? I doubt it. This has all been debated a thousand times. And to some point I can even understand your point of view, but constantly shouting "Fields of Abraham" and Quebecois probably is going to be about as effective as calling a portly fellow "fat". Why, because the truth hurts, for those people, sometimes? They can't rewrite the history books. Oh well, they can just make sure that history isn't taught in schools or repeated out loud. Edited March 31, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The key word there is think. The reality is that there are no countries more democratic and responsible than constitutional monarchies. Except that land to your south. And not Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The GG has the right to dismiss a government when he or she sees fit. This hasn't been used in the Realms since 1834, when William IV dismissed Lord Melbourne's ministry, but still, the power remains in the hands of the Queen and Her Governor Generals. The GG could then either ask someone else to form a government, or call new elections. What's more, if the Governor General would not do this, the Queen herself has the ultimate authority to dismiss not only the Government but the Governor General, and I find it likely that in the improbable series of events I've described, I'm quite certain that the Queen would directly intervene.On November 10, 1975 Australia's Governor General dismissed Gough Whitlam. very much against Mr. Whitlam's dubious advice, and appointed the opposition leader as caretaker PM pending elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Except that land to your south. The US is probably equally so, although the influence of money in your politics is far greater than in most of the countries that I'm thinking of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) On November 10, 1975 Australia's Governor General dismissed Gough Whitlam. very much against Mr. Whitlam's dubious advice, and appointed the opposition leader as caretaker PM pending elections. The Australian Constitutional Crisis is precisely such an example, though the crisis itself was created by the peculiarities of Australia's variant of the Westminster system. You also missed the King-Byng Affair where Lord Byng refused Mackenzie King's request to dissolve the House of Commons and instead asked Arthur Meighen's Conservatives to form a government, and Meighen, as well, treated it as a caretaker government. The difference between these and William IV's dismissal is that there was no crisis involved in that dismissal of a government. But you're right, there have been two later dismissals. Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Sincerely? I doubt it. If they didn't take the oath they couldn't sit in Parliament. Similar things used to happen with Sinn Fein MPs in the UK. They refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, and couldn't sit. But another poster has already posted evidence that Bloc members do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 No, it's definitely an issue, one of those happenstances of the Parliamentary system that are, in a way, quite unfair and unreasonable...but there's no way to do anything about it. I imagine every system has its inherent problems. Of course there's a way to do something about it. Every other province/region which feels like it wants to get more representation of the federal level can start a regional party that represents its interests first ahead of those of Canada as a whole in the federal parliament. We may as well have a Western bloc, Ontario bloc, Bloc Quebecois, and Maritime bloc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Of course there's a way to do something about it. Every other province/region which feels like it wants to get more representation of the federal level can start a regional party that represents its interests first ahead of those of Canada as a whole in the federal parliament. We may as well have a Western bloc, Ontario bloc, Bloc Quebecois, and Maritime bloc. Exacerbating the issue--and doing exactly what we keep complaining about--is not really "doing something about it." Besides, some people would argue that, to a degree, the West has already attempted such a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) A president is elected, he is a representative of citizens and ultimately represents them. That is why his decision is a democratic procedure.A monarch, alas, is not elected by citizens... A monarch isn't elected, no. But, you're deliberately simplifying things in order to make your case. In reality, there are different types of monarchs, generally divided into absolute and constitutional. Canada has one of the latter: the postision of sovereign of Canada is created and bound by the Canadian constitution, which was written and has been voted on numerous times by elected Canadian legislators and otherwise supported by our representative parliamentarians for generations. I'd be intrigued to hear how that actually isn't democratic. In fact, the apolitical, constitutional monarch represents all Canadians, regardless of their personal political leanings or how much they donated to a campaign. Can the same be said of a popularly elected president? He is representative of citizens, sure; only, just the ones who voted for him. How democratic is that? [sp] Edited March 31, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 You also missed the King-Byng Affair where Lord Byng refused Mackenzie King's request to dissolve the House of Commons and instead asked Arthur Meighen's Conservatives to form a government, and Meighen, as well, treated it as a caretaker government.I didn't leave out King/Byng. I've discussed that in excrutiating detail either in this or other similar threads in the past few days.Another extra-constitutional example would be, believe it or not, the United States. In 1974, it is widely believed that Nixon stepped down in exchange of a promise of a pardon from his likely successor. I personally believe that to have happened. Keep in mind that I don't think it was a bad thing. I actually was about the only one in my high school (I was a senior then) to support the Nixon pardon. I suspect strongly that Alexander Haig, a military officer at the time, was the go-between in this deal. We don't have a "reserve power" holder in our country so by necessity a similar result was improvised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I guess enough Canadians believed that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc would coalesce to make that point moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Welcome to May 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Welcome to May 2? I was going to say... Unless JBG is suggesting that the collapse of the Bloc in Quebec and the Liberals everywhere else means there will be an effective coalition of the three into a single party. Not that I see that happening. The Bloc, I think, will just evaporate, and if the Liberals and NDP merge, it will only be after the next election if the Liberals collapse even further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I was going to say... Unless JBG is suggesting that the collapse of the Bloc in Quebec and the Liberals everywhere else means there will be an effective coalition of the three into a single party. Not that I see that happening. The Bloc, I think, will just evaporate, and if the Liberals and NDP merge, it will only be after the next election if the Liberals collapse even further. cons wont win the next election, ndp will lose the unions and become mainstream all the disgusted con voters will vote ndp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 The Bloc, I think, will just evaporate, According to the latest poll, the Bloc is actually ahead of everyone but the NDP in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 cons wont win the next election, ndp will lose the unions and become mainstream I think the Conservatives will in fact win the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 cons wont win the next election, ndp will lose the unions and become mainstream all the disgusted con voters will vote ndp I think if Harper continues as he has, there's no reason to expect anything but a bigger victory. I'm not convinced the Libs are dead in the water, but they've got a huge task before them, and even the most optimistic appraisal does not suggest they'll be in a position to take the government by 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) I think the Conservatives will in fact win the next election. if the SCC rule in favour of elections canada all of the 66 mps that took part of thr in and out scheme wil be kicked out of parliament and possiblt be going to prison Edited October 20, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 According to the latest poll, the Bloc is actually ahead of everyone but the NDP in Quebec. I'm sure that's obsession with the provincial Liberals, who, I'm sure, are going to be sliced, diced and fried up after that little inquiry is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 if the SCC rule in favour of elections canada all of the 66 mps that took part of thr in and out scheme wil be kicked out of parliament and possiblt be going to prison Kicked out by whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.