My Criticisms and Reforming Suggestions for the Canadian Political Par

[Exegesisme]

My Criticisms and Reforming Suggestions for the Canadian Political Party System

By Exegesisme

Criticism 1, Technical definition for machines of election, can not provide great leadership to meet the great demand of great creativities of Canadian nation and Canadian people.

On information:

In Canada, for example, the Canada Elections Act defines a political party as: “an organization one of whose fundamental purpose is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election.”​(1)

Suggestion 1: defining political party by conscience, for example, conservative conscience, liberal conscience, NDP conscience, green conscience, and so on. Republic representative conscience providing great leadership re-organizes each individual conscience through different branches and different levels.

Criticism 2, Electing interests of a party overtakes the interests of the nation and the people.

On information:

Under Canada’s parliamentary system, the political party with the most MPs in the House usually forms government. Once in power, the governing party (or its leader) is entitled to fill a broad range of positions in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Examples include the cabinet ministers, executive staff (to fill key roles in the Prime Minister’s Office), the Governor General of Canada, members of the Senate, and justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.​(1)

Suggestion 2: each MPs in the House of Commons must speak and must vote on her or his conscience.

Criticism 3, Very bad example of the political culture in the House of Commons.

On information:

In this context, political parties operate as agents of political culture, teaching the “rules of the game” to citizens. Other key agents of political culture include the family, the formal education system, religious institutions, the mass media, and government itself.(1)​

Most MPs are members of a political party and, as such, are required to follow the wishes of their party when deliberating and acting in the House. In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents.​(2)

Suggestion 3: conscience as the only fundamental standard in the House of Commons.

Criticism 4, The machines of election in Canada faraway from the people.

On information:

Estimates suggests only between 1 percent and 2 percent belong to parties on an ongoing basis, placing Canadian party membership near the bottom of a list vis-à-vis many other western democracies (Carty & Cross, 2010).​(1)

In Canada, the parliamentary wings of parties stay continually active. The extra-parliamentary wing, by contrast, is often dormant, becoming active only during important events in the party’s life, such as election campaigns, leader selection or review, and large-scale reforms of the party’s policies. This is in contrast to other countries, such as Britain, where the extra-parliamentary wings of parties stay continually active, mobilizing electoral support and engaging the general public.​(1)

Suggestion 4: conscience as core links the nation, the parties, and the people.

Criticism 5, The mixture or ill-separation of legislative branch and executive branch weakens general representative function.

On information:

The parliamentary wing consists of the party’s elected members in Parliament, which usually includes the leader and members of the party caucus. This wing is responsible for party activities in the legislative and executive branches of government, such as voting on legislation, participating in parliamentary committees, and selecting government officials.​(1)

Suggestion 5: the three branches of power should be well-separated for reconstituting the leadership of the whole nation to a higher level.

Criticism 6, A set of a few through an alien system, which representative function of the people is very weak, rules all.

On information:

In theory, for a political party, the convention is the ultimate authority. In practice, however, the party’s leadership and elite tend to dominate party life (see below for more on party leadership).(1)

Party organization also includes the local constituency level. The major parties usually have organizations in individual electoral districts, which oversee the activities of the party at the local level. These organizations are led by constituency executives who recruit volunteers and raise funds for election campaigning. This local level also plays a role in the election of convention delegates and the nomination and selection of candidates.(1)

It is important to note that the concept of responsible government has a particular meaning in Canadian parliamentary democracy. At first glance, one might think it means it is about government being responsible or accountable to the people over whom it governs. In Canada's parliamentary system, however, it means ― more precisely ― that government is responsible to the elected representatives of the people.​(2)

Suggestion 6: the set of the few should be deeply and accountably connected with the whole.

Criticism 7, "The elected representatives of the people" do not really represents the people, but represents their parties as they vote in the House of Commons.

On information:

(Criticism 2 information(2))

Suggestion 7: each MP should reestablish her or his conscience with the people in the relevant constituency through the campaign of an election and routine connection.

Criticism 8, The opposing influence effects extremely, no important influence on the government or overthrowing the government, and lacks establishing opposing influence.

On information:

If the party is not in power, the leader directs the caucus in opposing the government and its policies (where there is discord), raising criticisms of government actions and providing alternate policies. The leader usually oversees a shadow cabinet, made up of senior caucus members who focus on specific areas of public policy in their criticisms of the government.(1)

Suggestion 8: the executive branch should have its own constitutional resources for its stability, and then the legislative branch can establish a situation for free speech and free vote on the republic conscience of each MP.

Criticism 9, Policymaking process lacks general, strong and effective checks and balances.

On information:

At a very minimum, parties must develop platforms during elections which set out their course of action if the party is successfully elected to govern. In formulating policy, however, parties often face a difficult dilemma (Dyck, 2008). On the on hand, parties aim to provide party members with an opportunity to put forward and debate policy ideas. On the other, parties need to protect against adopting policy commitments that are unrealistic or may be detrimental to electoral success.(1)

Suggestion 9: Canadian people need general political education for understanding the core position of their political rights in their life-time benefits, which strengthens the grassroots of policymaking and influence.

Criticism 10, regionalism is a symptom of Ill-representative function of ill-party system and ill-federal politics.

On information:

Many of these new parties are or have been based around a particular region and its interests. The Bloc Québécois, for example, runs candidates only in the province of Quebec, with Quebec nationalism serving as its key policy plank. The Reform Party (and its later incarnation, the Canadian Alliance) was a western-based party that focused on themes including western alienation and seeking a voice for western interests in national politics.​(1)

Instead of parties aggregating and accommodating interests on a national scale, Canada is left with a set of parties which are largely regionally based, focused predominantly on a given region’s interests.While this may be a valid charge, it is important to note that regional parties are an do articulate interests that may otherwise be marginalized in the political system. In this vein, the creation of the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance and Bloc Québécois parties was, in part, the result of perceived deficiencies in the existing political system at the time, where the interests of central Canada (and, in particular, Ontario) were thought to dominate.​(1)

Suggestion 10: synthetic reformation aims to form Republic Representative Conscience for Republic Representative Function.

Reference

(1) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/political-parties-and-party-system-canada-history-operation-and-issues

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

Edited September 12, 2015 by Exegesisme

[cannuck]

I hear your criticism, and agree, but you declined to suggest the solution.

My personal belief after years of involvement with the partisan mechanisms is that political parties should not be allowed at all in any truly representative form of government. Partisanship is exactly what facilitates rule-by-special-interest. While the function of government should be to govern, regulate and enforce, we have expanded that to meddle very deeply in the economic affairs of the nation - resulting in a network of old boys clubs that dispense privilege to the extent of affecting change and control over every detail of our lives.

[Exegesisme]

I hear your criticism, and agree, but you declined to suggest the solution.

My personal belief after years of involvement with the partisan mechanisms is that political parties should not be allowed at all in any truly representative form of government. Partisanship is exactly what facilitates rule-by-special-interest. While the function of government should be to govern, regulate and enforce, we have expanded that to meddle very deeply in the economic affairs of the nation - resulting in a network of old boys clubs that dispense privilege to the extent of affecting change and control over every detail of our lives.

Your observation means something.

However, what is your solution exactly? When did I decline your solution?

[Exegesisme]

Welcome adding criticisms and suggestions for great future of Canadian nation and Canadian people.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Queenmandy85]

The obvious solution is to nominate and campaign for independent candidates. If you work hard enough and convince enough voters your candidate is the best, she will win. Do this across the country and there will be no political parties. That is the best solution because it will be the will of the voters.

Good luck with that.

[Exegesisme]

The obvious solution is to nominate and campaign for independent candidates. If you work hard enough and convince enough voters your candidate is the best, she will win. Do this across the country and there will be no political parties. That is the best solution because it will be the will of the voters.

Good luck with that.

Could you design a national leadership beginning with the independent candidates?

[ToadBrother]

Could you design a national leadership beginning with the independent candidates?

Great Britain was somewhat governed like that from the Glorious Revolution until the last decades of the 18th century. There were two large groupings, Whigs and Tories, but they weren't parties as we understand them, but rather heterogeneous entities that shared a few ideals (ie. the Tories tended to be very pro-Monarchist whereas the Whigs were more pro-Parliament). Still there were no caucuses as such, and quite often getting MPs to vote on any bill was a matter of a lot of horsetrading. This system was rife with corruption, though it cannot all be blamed on the lack of solid Parliamentary leadership with teeth; there were rotten boroughs, and rather undeveloped anti-bribery rules and the like. Still, Parliament at that time was essentially partisan without proper political parties. It also wasn't a terribly effective governing style, and by the time of the American Revolution, we already had the notion of a Prime Minister or Premier who could command a majority coalition of MPs to expedite legislation; in other words, we had the first proper political parties.

The US has actually maintained that system to some extent (little wonder, as it was founded during a time when British political parties were still in their infancy). Even now, while there is some notion of party and caucus solidarity, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the levels of power over individual Representatives and Senators that are seen in many Parliamentary systems. To accomplish this again requires a considerable amount of horsetrading, so it's not as if it creates a more transparent system.

If you eliminated political parties, someone would just implement them again. As much as I dislike them, I think it is inevitable in any kind of assembly that like-minded representatives will create voting pacts to give their legislation a greater chance of success.

George Washington, in his final address as President, attacked the idea of political parties and sincerely hoped that Congress would remain a body of independent representatives, but even he knew parties were inevitable.

[Exegesisme]

Great Britain was somewhat governed like that from the Glorious Revolution until the last decades of the 18th century. There were two large groupings, Whigs and Tories, but they weren't parties as we understand them, but rather heterogeneous entities that shared a few ideals (ie. the Tories tended to be very pro-Monarchist whereas the Whigs were more pro-Parliament). Still there were no caucuses as such, and quite often getting MPs to vote on any bill was a matter of a lot of horsetrading. This system was rife with corruption, though it cannot all be blamed on the lack of solid Parliamentary leadership with teeth; there were rotten boroughs, and rather undeveloped anti-bribery rules and the like. Still, Parliament at that time was essentially partisan without proper political parties. It also wasn't a terribly effective governing style, and by the time of the American Revolution, we already had the notion of a Prime Minister or Premier who could command a majority coalition of MPs to expedite legislation; in other words, we had the first proper political parties.

The US has actually maintained that system to some extent (little wonder, as it was founded during a time when British political parties were still in their infancy). Even now, while there is some notion of party and caucus solidarity, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the levels of power over individual Representatives and Senators that are seen in many Parliamentary systems. To accomplish this again requires a considerable amount of horsetrading, so it's not as if it creates a more transparent system.

If you eliminated political parties, someone would just implement them again. As much as I dislike them, I think it is inevitable in any kind of assembly that like-minded representatives will create voting pacts to give their legislation a greater chance of success.

George Washington, in his final address as President, attacked the idea of political parties and sincerely hoped that Congress would remain a body of independent representatives, but even he knew parties were inevitable.

Thank you for your introduction. My ideal is to weaken the function of political parties in politics, then releases space for re-organizing real great leadership on values of conscience. In my ideal, there are different leaderships in different branches, each of them should be well-separated for each specific function, and together well-cooperate for great leadership and the whole function, somewhat as your introduction of UK and US.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Exegesisme

[ToadBrother]

Thank you for your introduction. My ideal is to weaken the function of political parties in politics, then releases space for re-organizing real great leadership on values of conscience. In my ideal, there are different leaderships in different branches, each of them should be well-separated for each specific function, and together well-cooperate for great leadership and the whole function, somewhat as your introduction of UK and US.

The US has such a system, and it has not eliminated partisanship. People are people, and even where the differences are sincere and unselfish, the differences remain. As much as a good government should be democratic, it must also be functional. As much as parties are nasty affairs at times, they create a means of producing a functional and effective government.

[Exegesisme]

The US has such a system, and it has not eliminated partisanship. People are people, and even where the differences are sincere and unselfish, the differences remain. As much as a good government should be democratic, it must also be functional. As much as parties are nasty affairs at times, they create a means of producing a functional and effective government.

So, do you like the US political system?

Edited September 12, 2015 by Exegesisme

[ToadBrother]

So, do you like the US political system?

Parts of it, but I'm a dedicated Parliamentarian. I'm in full accord with Bagehot, who viewed a government that is formed out of Parliament and sits in Parliament to be preferable to one that is severed from Parliament. I'm sure there are many times over the years when members of Congress have wished the US had a concept of confidence, so they could boot the President out.

[Exegesisme]

Parts of it, but I'm a dedicated Parliamentarian. I'm in full accord with Bagehot, who viewed a government that is formed out of Parliament and sits in Parliament to be preferable to one that is severed from Parliament. I'm sure there are many times over the years when members of Congress have wished the US had a concept of confidence, so they could boot the President out.

Which part? do you have any idea to unify the advantages of our political system and the US political system?

In my opinion, the executive branch in US is an advantage.

[ToadBrother]

Which part? do you have any idea to unify the advantages of our political system and the US political system?

In my opinion, the executive branch in US is an advantage.

The US system tends more towards deadlocks, not just between the President and Congress, but between the two houses of Congress. It was designed that way.

The one observation I do have is that fewer Parliamentary governments had fallen into dictatorship that Presidential governments, and those that did tended to be fairly new parliamentary countries (ie. the German Empire, the Kingdom of Italy, and post-Meiji Japan). The US system, while it has worked marvelously well, due to what Bagehot observed as the Americans' "genius for politics", has been rather less successful in other countries. The former Spanish colonies, when they shed Spanish rule in the 19th century, all adopted the US Presidential-Congressional system (they were all great admirers of the United States at that time), but nearly all fell into despotism, as the supposed limits on the Executive laid out in their constitutions failed, Presidents accrued vast powers, and the legislative and judicial branches remained stunted and ineffective, becoming rubber stamps. While things are improving, one only has to look at Venezuela to see how the ossification of the legislative and judiciary still tends towards autocratic rule.

When a government is a part of the legislative assembly, where its ministers must face Parliament directly, and where Parliament ultimately holds the power to retain or defeat a government, and where the "regal" executive remains non-partisan and acts as a sort of "negative" power in depriving the functional government of absolute executive authority (via the Reserve Powers), it is much harder for the functional executive to seize greater powers. Perhaps not impossible, as Cromwell's years as an effective tyrant after the English Civil War demonstrates, but much harder.

The American system has worked exceedingly well, in America. Elsewhere, the track record is very mixed.

[Exegesisme]

The US system tends more towards deadlocks, not just between the President and Congress, but between the two houses of Congress. It was designed that way.

This is a very good observation. I have a taste that the price of deadlocks has made a farther deep checks and balances for refining high level of leadership. The similar situation in our system usually may cause the change of government, and then loses the chance to achieve higher leadership. How do you think?

[ToadBrother]

This is a very good observation. I have a taste that the price of deadlocks has made a farther deep checks and balances for refining high level of leadership. The similar situation in our system usually may cause the change of government, and then loses the chance to achieve higher leadership. How do you think?

I confess I haven't read your initial post. Can you define in simple terms what it is you mean by "higher leadership"?

[Exegesisme]

I confess I haven't read your initial post. Can you define in simple terms what it is you mean by "higher leadership"?

Example as the leadership for the making of the Constitution, which achieved by overcoming many deadlocks.

Let me try a definition: a creative leadership, which shows political genius, is inspired by a set of political deadlocks, and makes great achievement by overcoming such a set of political deadlocks.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Exegesisme

[ToadBrother]

Example as the leadership for the making of the Constitution, which achieved by overcoming many deadlocks.

Let me try a definition: a creative leadership, which shows political genius, is inspired by a set of political deadlocks, and makes great achievement by overcoming such a set of political deadlocks.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Exegesisme]

Example as the leadership for the making of the Constitution, which achieved by overcoming many deadlocks.

Let me try a definition: a creative leadership, which shows political genius, is inspired by a set of political deadlocks, and makes great achievement by overcoming such a set of political deadlocks.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

The Higher Leadership,

Historical example: the leadership in the process of making the constitution of USA.

Ongoing example: the leadership of Trump in his campaign.

Definition: the higher leadership, is the leadership which should creatively solve hard issues, breakthrough deadlocks, make great achievements, create new momentums, and rebuild balance at higher level.

Application: I hope that the higher leadership appears everywhere in Canada.

[ToadBrother]

The Higher Leadership,

Historical example: the leadership in the process of making the constitution of USA.

Ongoing example: the leadership of Trump in his campaign.

Definition: the higher leadership, is the leadership which should creatively solve hard issues, breakthrough deadlocks, make great achievements, create new momentums, and rebuild balance at higher level.

Application: I hope that the higher leadership appears everywhere in Canada.

This seems far to vague to be a practical way of measuring any leadership.

[Exegesisme]

This seems far to vague to be a practical way of measuring any leadership.

Using your experience to fill the gap of understanding.

[ToadBrother]

Using your experience to fill the gap of understanding.

Is this your way of saying you're not going to properly define the concept?

[Exegesisme]

Is this your way of saying you're not going to properly define the concept?

This is a definition for who well prepares to be higher leadership, not for who does not well prepares to be higher leadership. Only very few people can achieve it. If out of your range, it is not surprising. You should know a definition is not just at the level of your understanding. As you see a higher leadership, you even do not know it is a leadership. Some job may be farther into history, and then one talent historian surprises to find it. Take it ease.

[ToadBrother]

This is a definition for who well prepares to be higher leadership, not for who does not well prepares to be higher leadership. Only very few people can achieve it. If out of your range, it is not surprising. You should know a definition is not just at the level of your understanding. As you see a higher leadership, you even do not know it is a leadership. Some job may be farther into history, and then one talent historian surprises to find it. Take it ease.

So the fact that you can't actually define the concept in anything other than the vaguest terms is my fault?

I've spent a decade studying political science as a hobby, and frankly, your whole concept just seems vacuous and muddled, almost as if you have no real concrete definition of "higher leadership" yourself.

[Exegesisme]

So the fact that you can't actually define the concept in anything other than the vaguest terms is my fault?

I've spent a decade studying political science as a hobby, and frankly, your whole concept just seems vacuous and muddled, almost as if you have no real concrete definition of "higher leadership" yourself.

"A decade studying political science as a hobby", Is this enough for understanding Higher Leadership? A concept who will win as once she or he really understands.