Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister

[Exegesisme]

Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister​

By Exegesisme

On studying the House of Commons(1), I proposed eight reforming directions of the federal politics on the eight weaknesses I had found in my study(2). On continuing study and deep thinking(1)(3), I found that there is a rather large proportion of federal politics that is unconstitutional(4), Canada needs to reconstitute(5).

Although "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister of Canada both in Cabinet and in the executive branch in general"(6), and "the subordinate position of the practice of responsible government"(6) are not for formally written in any constitutional document, they are seen as a part of constitution as "regularly observed" "unwritten conventions" (6).

Although "the Constitution provides for a broad set of individual rights and freedoms, most of which are stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"(6), "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms", and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)."(6)

In practice of the Constitution of Canada, "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister" is highly over "the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", which are still "in very general terms", and "their precise meaning" are waiting to be "interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary". Such a strong power on such a weak people! This actuality makes even the MPs in the House of Commons to give up their freedom and their responsive duty to the power of the Prime Minister system and the potential Prime Minister system(1). For the central position and the publicity of the House of Commons, the practice in the house of Commons would highly likely paly crucial role in reshape the whole nation of Canada. The passion, initiative and creativity of the Canadian people are seized by the unreasonable concentration of the power of the Prime Minister.

However, in another aspect, in the present arrangement of the Constitution, we see that the Prime Minister needs to concentrate the power as possible as she or he can for both the legislative role and the executive role of the Prime Minister. If the prime minister is not strong enough to get the support of the majority in the House of Commons, her or his government would resign, which increases the instability of the politics and makes less prediction of future.

Therefore, Canada needs the direct election of the Prime Minister, which endows the power to the Prime Minister and makes the power of the executive branch independent of the legislative branch, and makes the Government of Canada more sustainable and predictable. And in the legislative branch, the MPs and Senators(in future as they are elected) enjoy more freedom to represent their constituents from the policy of their party.

For this reason, we need to amend the Constitution.

Reference

(1) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body

(2) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24828-8-weaknesses-of-federal-political-system-and-reform/

(3) http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

(4) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24841-the-unconstitutional-political-practice-should-be-ended-soon/

(5) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24842-reconstitution-of-canada/

(6) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework

Edited August 26, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Moonlight Graham]

All your posts say to me that you would like Canada to be a republic. An elected PM would likely mean he would need to be simply an executive and not be directly involved in the legislature (like the President of the US), since an elected PM that was from a different party than most MP's in Parliament would be unmanageable any other way.

I would prefer Canada to be a republic but it's such a big change it's unrealistic to think it will happen. You'd be better off supporting reform for more MP independence from party leadership, like Michael Chong's Reform Act, but not as watered-down.

[Mighty AC]

Michael Chong, is a good man and could have been a great political figure if not hampered by a vindictive, dictatorial PM. It was nice to see Chong sacrifice a cabinet post, money, perks, limo service, etc. to preserve his integrity in the face of Harper the bully.

Anyway, I would prefer to see Canadians given two votes. One for the governing party and one for their local representative. Each winning local rep gets a seat, parliament is adjusted with additional MPs to match the popular vote and the leader of the party with the greatest share of the popular vote becomes PM. Every vote counts, regardless of what your neighbours think, you can support a good local rep, even if you despise their party (eg. Mike Chong) and you can vote directly for a desired governing party or PM. Win, win, win. Plus I like the idea that the PM isn't greater than the House of Commons.

[Exegesisme]

All your posts say to me that you would like Canada to be a republic. An elected PM would likely mean he would need to be simply an executive and not be directly involved in the legislature (like the President of the US), since an elected PM that was from a different party than most MP's in Parliament would be unmanageable any other way.

I would prefer Canada to be a republic but it's such a big change it's unrealistic to think it will happen. You'd be better off supporting reform for more MP independence from party leadership, like Michael Chong's Reform Act, but not as watered-down.

Yes to your first paragraph.

According to the definition of republic, "A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.", Canada is a republic now, but at low level. My reason is that "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms", and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)."(6)

An elected PM is the goodest to create a stable government for its term, and at the same time, releases the freedom of MPs in the House of Commons for representative function and legislative function.

We should aim at the goodest for the Canadian future.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Smallc]

An elected PM would be a mess. There's a reason that no one does that.

[Exegesisme]

Michael Chong, is a good man and could have been a great political figure if not hampered by a vindictive, dictatorial PM. It was nice to see Chong sacrifice a cabinet post, money, perks, limo service, etc. to preserve his integrity in the face of Harper the bully.

Anyway, I would prefer to see Canadians given two votes. One for the governing party and one for their local representative. Each winning local rep gets a seat, parliament is adjusted with additional MPs to match the popular vote and the leader of the party with the greatest share of the popular vote becomes PM. Every vote counts, regardless of what your neighbours think, you can support a good local rep, even if you despise their party (eg. Mike Chong) and you can vote directly for a desired governing party or PM. Win, win, win. Plus I like the idea that the PM isn't greater than the House of Commons.

Your idea is good, but not enough, because on your idea, only the leader of a party is possible to be a PM. My idea is that, the position of PM should become expectation of people in a much wide area, and become the source of their passion and dream.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Exegesisme]

An elected PM would be a mess. There's a reason that no one does that.

Could you give all your reasons in detail?

[Mighty AC]

Your idea is good, but not enough, because on your idea, only the leader of a party is possible to be a PM. My idea is that, the position of PM should become expectation of people in a much wide area, and become the source of their passion and dream.

Prior to Stephen Harper's rule, parties actually worked together in committee to improve legislation. MPs were free to voice their thoughts, concerns and ideas within their committee. Yet, despite the fact that PM Harper isn't on the various committees he was able to eliminate the ability of CPC MPs to think and speak freely in committee meetings. The PMO assigns CPC MPs their positions and talking points during pre-committee meetings and failure to execute one's orders is met with scorn and the threat of permanent backbench status and even expulsion from the party. Thus, CPC MPs simply follow instructions to avoid the wrath of the PM and his office.

How would your plan to basically separate the PM and MPs into two different namespaces (Executive, Legislative) prevent a guy like Harper from controlling his MPs behind the scenes, as he currently does during committee meetings?

[Smallc]

Could you give all your reasons in detail?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel#Direct_election

[Exegesisme]

Prior to Stephen Harper's rule, parties actually worked together in committee to improve legislation. MPs were free to voice their thoughts, concerns and ideas within their committee. Yet, despite the fact that PM Harper isn't on the various committees he was able to eliminate the ability of CPC MPs to think and speak freely in committee meetings. The PMO assigns CPC MPs their positions and talking points during pre-committee meetings and failure to execute one's orders is met with scorn and the threat of permanent backbench status and even expulsion from the party. Thus, CPC MPs simply follow instructions to avoid the wrath of the PM and his office.

How would your plan to basically separate the PM and MPs into two different namespaces (Executive, Legislative) prevent a guy like Harper from controlling his MPs behind the scenes, as he currently does during committee meetings?

1, The PM from direct election should be responsible for the people, and not the parliaments.

2, The members of the parliaments should be responsible for their constituents, and not the PM.

3, The arrangements will be protected by an amendment in the Constitution.

[Smallc]

1, The PM from direct election should be responsible for the people, and not the parliaments.

This is a serious question - do you know what a prime minister is?

[Exegesisme]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel#Direct_election

They were immature.

You see now in USA. The party of the President only has minority in both the Senate and the House, but President Obama gets the job done very well.​

[Exegesisme]

This is a serious question - do you know what a prime minister is?

Not the current one or traditional one, but the PM who is elected according to my proposal.

[Smallc]

You see now in USA. The party of the President only has minority in both the Senate and the House, but President Obama gets the job done very well.​

From this, I take the answer to my question. A prime minister and a president are not the same thing. What you want is an elected executive president. That would require a change to not only a republic, but to either a presidential or semi presidential system.

[Smallc]

Not the current one or traditional one, but the PM who is elected according to my proposal.

But then it wouldn't be a prime minister anymore. The prime minister is a minister of the executive, and under a parliamentary system, that person must be accountable to parliament.

[Mighty AC]

1, The PM from direct election should be responsible for the people, and not the parliaments.

2, The members of the parliaments should be responsible for their constituents, and not the PM.

3, The arrangements will be protected by an amendment in the Constitution.

MPs are supposed to be responsible for their constituents now, but it's not the case. A change in the electoral system like I described earlier could make representatives more accountable to voters, but is there a way to legally protect MPs from the PM of their party? Current CPC MPs don't bother to challenge Harper's script for them because of the bullying it leads to. What could be done give MPs the freedom to put their constituents ahead of the party?

[Queenmandy85]

Harper is only able to control the CPC caucus because the members let him. They have been held captive by their belief that he will get them re-elected. If you really want to reform Parliament, get out and get MP's elected who are not so venal and chicken. The Queen may appoint the Prime Minister but the PM serves at the pleasure of the Members of Parliament as well as the Crown.

[Exegesisme]

But then it wouldn't be a prime minister anymore. The prime minister is a minister of the executive, and under a parliamentary system, that person must be accountable to parliament.

Traditionally, you are right. No matter what name you use, the reality is that our Canadian federal politics needs to be improved. I hope that you can make your proposal in this direction.

I have another reason to use the name PM, this can avoid any change related to the position of Queen.

And especially in the direction future-directed, we may need to create something new to try to avoid all sorts of issues from various traditions.

[Smallc]

I have another reason to use the name PM, this can avoid any change related to the position of Queen.

You're proposing changing our entire system of government. It's impossible that it wouldn't affect everything.

[Exegesisme]

MPs are supposed to be responsible for their constituents now, but it's not the case. A change in the electoral system like I described earlier could make representatives more accountable to voters, but is there a way to legally protect MPs from the PM of their party? Current CPC MPs don't bother to challenge Harper's script for them because of the bullying it leads to. What could be done give MPs the freedom to put their constituents ahead of the party?

Constitution makes them depend on their constituents more than their parties.

[Exegesisme]

Harper is only able to control the CPC caucus because the members let him. They have been held captive by their belief that he will get them re-elected. If you really want to reform Parliament, get out and get MP's elected who are not so venal and chicken. The Queen may appoint the Prime Minister but the PM serves at the pleasure of the Members of Parliament as well as the Crown.

Just as what said just now "Constitution makes them depend on their constituents more than their parties."

[PrimeNumber]

I've always thought that Canada should ditch the whole queen thing and keep our old titles and move to a more multi-party republic style democracy.
Every four years we get together and vote on 3 separate things.

1. We vote for an MP to represent our local constituency and us in Parliament.

2. We vote for a Prime Minister who's function is to form a Cabinet and tend to mostly domestic matters.

3. We vote for a Governor General, someone to represent us on the International Scene. The face of Canada, a great public speaker. Duties would include holding negotiations on international treaties, be assigned commander-in-chief of the armed forces and many other things.

[Smallc]

What you're basically proposing is a semi presidential republic...but they don't vote for prime minister either. No one does, because it's terribly messy, and the one time it was tried, it failed.

[Exegesisme]

I've always thought that Canada should ditch the whole queen thing and keep our old titles and move to a more multi-party republic style democracy.

Every four years we get together and vote on 3 separate things.

1. We vote for an MP to represent our local constituency and us in Parliament.

2. We vote for a Prime Minister who's function is to form a Cabinet and tend to mostly domestic matters.

3. We vote for a Governor General, someone to represent us on the International Scene. The face of Canada, a great public speaker. Duties would include holding negotiations on international treaties, be assigned commander-in-chief of the armed forces and many other things.

I admire your concept of "a more multi-party republic style democracy", and your first point, and we also need to make the republic style in progress.

I think the functions of 2 and 3 should be put together, one person is enough, as the President of USA.

Maybe the Queen and a Queen-system are needed to represent our tradition.

[Smallc]

Maybe the Queen and a Queen-system are needed to represent our tradition.

You can't have a president and a queen. What would be the point of the queen?