![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's been a while... but I'm taking two "social sciences" courses this summer: one political science (May and June, Mon/Wed mornings) and one feminist studies (July and August, Tue/Thu evenings). I'm also taking a math course (statistics and probability) for the whole summer (May through August, Mon/Wed evenings). I'm also working at least full time on the CRIPT and FOREWARN projects. But with any luck, that will only go for another couple of weeks in June (and maybe a week or two in August) because the university screwed up the project's funding and they don't have enough money to pay me for the whole summer (everybody else has been laid off, sigh... although most have been picked up in some manner by other projects or endeavours at the school).
This was a fun short essay to write, it's for a course called "Canadian Political Institutions", which is described as: "An examination of Canadian political institutions, including federalism, Parliament, the constitution, political parties and the electoral system." It's almost a guilty pleasure, but I'm fascinated with this stuff. It's also the brother to the "Canadian Political Environment" course that I took a couple of years back (that course's description is: "An examination of the cultural, social, and economic context of Canadian politics, including interest groups and social movements, regionalism, language, ethnicity, and gender."). The instructions for this essay were: Peter Russell distinguishes between Burkean and Lockean styles of constitution-making, saying that Canada has traditionally taken a Burkean approach but in the late 20th century tried a more Lockean style. In your view, is a Burkean or a Lockean style of constitution-making better suited for Canada? Your essay must take a clear position on the above question and argue for either the Burkean or Lockean style. It should be between 1000 to 1250 words long and must have a clear thesis statement. It should also address, in some way, the following additional questions: Does it matter that Quebec has never agreed to the 1982 constitutional reforms? Was the pursuit of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords a terrible idea?.
My next essay is on electoral reform, I can't wait! But first, this one's a bit dry getting going because I have to explain the concepts, but I get frothy and opinionated later in the essay and it apparently picks up at that point ;).
Constitution-Making, Burkean Style:
A Kinder, Gentler, More Canadian Approach
Canada, in both it’s creation and evolution, has experienced a primarily Burkean, pragmatic and largely unwritten, approach to its constitutional development. This tactical, rather than strategic, approach is in profound contrast with countries such as the United States of America that took a deeply Lockean, deliberate and written, trajectory to realizing a constitution. In the late 20th century, largely motivated by the process of finalizing Canada’s independence from Britain and the separatist threat posed by Quebec, the Canadian political elite undertook a period of Lockean “mega-constitutional” projects (Dyck 2011). Of the many attempts at massive constitutional reform, only the Constitution Act of 1982 was adopted, and even it has never been ratified by the provincial legislature of Quebec. It is clear, looking back at the devastating impact of that period, that only a predominantly Burkean approach to constitutional reform will ever succeed in Canada — the Lockean style of constitution making virtually guarantees that some powerful constituency will be alienated at great cost to the federation. Thus, Canada needs to back away from further mega-constitutional attempts and adopt a deliberate and carefully thought-out Burkean strategy going forward.
( The rest of the essay is here... )
A Burkean approach to the constitution in Canada has proven to be the only viable one possible given its pragmatic history, and complex federal structure in a multicultural and multi-regional environment. The mega-constitutional ventures in the late 20th century demonstrated that the Lockean approach is toxic to the organism that is Canada. The challenge going forward is to explicitly endorse the Burkean approach and implement a minimal set of guiding principles, limitations, and powers to ensure that at least the institutions that support the evolution of the constitution are up to the challenge. Ultimately, the success or failure of the approach will fall at the feet of the population — the electorate — who must hold their government responsible to them. With the dysfunctionally low voter turnout in recent elections and strong majorities explicitly representing less than a quarter of the electorate, Canada is in a state of constitutional crisis. If level heads prevail, perhaps along with the implementation of mandatory voting, we will see an end to this chapter in our evolution as a country and return to an extended period of peace, order, and good Burkean governance.
( And the bibliography is here... )
This was a fun short essay to write, it's for a course called "Canadian Political Institutions", which is described as: "An examination of Canadian political institutions, including federalism, Parliament, the constitution, political parties and the electoral system." It's almost a guilty pleasure, but I'm fascinated with this stuff. It's also the brother to the "Canadian Political Environment" course that I took a couple of years back (that course's description is: "An examination of the cultural, social, and economic context of Canadian politics, including interest groups and social movements, regionalism, language, ethnicity, and gender."). The instructions for this essay were: Peter Russell distinguishes between Burkean and Lockean styles of constitution-making, saying that Canada has traditionally taken a Burkean approach but in the late 20th century tried a more Lockean style. In your view, is a Burkean or a Lockean style of constitution-making better suited for Canada? Your essay must take a clear position on the above question and argue for either the Burkean or Lockean style. It should be between 1000 to 1250 words long and must have a clear thesis statement. It should also address, in some way, the following additional questions: Does it matter that Quebec has never agreed to the 1982 constitutional reforms? Was the pursuit of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords a terrible idea?.
My next essay is on electoral reform, I can't wait! But first, this one's a bit dry getting going because I have to explain the concepts, but I get frothy and opinionated later in the essay and it apparently picks up at that point ;).
A Kinder, Gentler, More Canadian Approach
Canada, in both it’s creation and evolution, has experienced a primarily Burkean, pragmatic and largely unwritten, approach to its constitutional development. This tactical, rather than strategic, approach is in profound contrast with countries such as the United States of America that took a deeply Lockean, deliberate and written, trajectory to realizing a constitution. In the late 20th century, largely motivated by the process of finalizing Canada’s independence from Britain and the separatist threat posed by Quebec, the Canadian political elite undertook a period of Lockean “mega-constitutional” projects (Dyck 2011). Of the many attempts at massive constitutional reform, only the Constitution Act of 1982 was adopted, and even it has never been ratified by the provincial legislature of Quebec. It is clear, looking back at the devastating impact of that period, that only a predominantly Burkean approach to constitutional reform will ever succeed in Canada — the Lockean style of constitution making virtually guarantees that some powerful constituency will be alienated at great cost to the federation. Thus, Canada needs to back away from further mega-constitutional attempts and adopt a deliberate and carefully thought-out Burkean strategy going forward.
( The rest of the essay is here... )
A Burkean approach to the constitution in Canada has proven to be the only viable one possible given its pragmatic history, and complex federal structure in a multicultural and multi-regional environment. The mega-constitutional ventures in the late 20th century demonstrated that the Lockean approach is toxic to the organism that is Canada. The challenge going forward is to explicitly endorse the Burkean approach and implement a minimal set of guiding principles, limitations, and powers to ensure that at least the institutions that support the evolution of the constitution are up to the challenge. Ultimately, the success or failure of the approach will fall at the feet of the population — the electorate — who must hold their government responsible to them. With the dysfunctionally low voter turnout in recent elections and strong majorities explicitly representing less than a quarter of the electorate, Canada is in a state of constitutional crisis. If level heads prevail, perhaps along with the implementation of mandatory voting, we will see an end to this chapter in our evolution as a country and return to an extended period of peace, order, and good Burkean governance.
( And the bibliography is here... )
