![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, I just wrote my final exam in my Canadian Political Institutions summer course (yikes that was compressed)! I also got my mark for the final essay I turned in on Monday so I can post it here now (that prof is seriously into his chosen field of study and his calling as a teacher... he's actually one of the best profs I've ever had in any subject: Jonathan Malloy if you ever get the chance at Carleton University or run into him somewhere in the world). I got 87% for my grade, which needless to say I'm very happy with (not so happy with the 75% I got on that last essay, but he explained [!!! an amazing prof !!!] why I got that mark and I was able to avoid many of the mistakes I made the first time around, and the mark was fair given the flaws in my work). I'm a bit sad that I didn't have time to write the optional essay on election reform, but from a marks perspective, this probably worked out better for me (I was even done this one with a little time to spare, if I'd even tried the optional one it would have been rushed and something of a hack job).
But on to the essay, the topic given was: "In his essay The Rise of Court Government in Canada, Donald Savoie argues that court government has taken root in Canada… effective power rests with the prime minister and a small group of carefully selected courtiers. This assignment asks you to address this issue and answer the following: Are Canadian prime ministers too powerful? Your essay must take a clear position on the above question and must have a clear thesis statement. It should also address, in some way, the following: Even if “court government” is real, are prime ministers sufficiently accountable for their actions? and Has Stephen Harper significantly increased the powers of the prime minister, and/or made greater use of them, more than his predecessors? It is important that you focus on the office of the prime minister as an institution, rather than your views on particular prime ministers and their policies." And here it is:
Are Canadian Prime Ministers Too Powerful?
Questions around the effectiveness and accountability of state governments is a matter of an ongoing debate that is as dynamic and constant as the nature of power itself. Controversy over the authority used or misused by the seemingly inevitable central figure(s) of state is often the focus of these ubiquitous political discussions. In Canada’s case, it is the individual in the role of prime minister that bears the brunt of this running commentary by the public, the press, the pundits, and academics alike. It is understandable in the Canadian context because, as Savoie states, “[i]t is hardly possible to overemphasize the fact that the Canadian prime ministers have few limits defining their political authority within the government” (Savoie 1999). The ambiguity of any limits on prime ministerial power is further enhanced by the largely Burkean constitution of Canada, where those “powers rest on custom and convention” (Dyck 2011). But the answer to the often central question in discussions of governance in Canada: “does the prime minister wield too much power?”, tends to depend strongly on whether they are acting in a manner consistent with one’s own expectations or desires, or whether the decisions they are making run counter to one’s perceived interests. If the former, the argument is often that the prime minister needs strong executive power to enact innovative solutions to “the issues” (whatever they may be at any given time); if the latter, the opinion is usually that they have obviously overstepped the bounds of the office and action must be taken to prevent a repeat of such behaviour in the future. Having lived through the reign of ten prime ministers, and thus having been witness to the dramatic centralization of power into the Prime Minister’s Office over that time, it seems that at least some of Canada’s electoral and governance woes can be blamed on this trend. Regardless of whether a government has generally moved in directions of the common good or not, versus special or regional interests, the inescapable conclusion must be that Canadian prime ministers are, in fact, too powerful.
( The rest of the essay is here... )
Are Canadian prime ministers too powerful? Without a doubt. What does this mean for governance in Canada? That is far less clear. Previous prime ministers have been described as “friendly dictators” (Thomas 2003), but if the people of Canada are no longer the constituency that the prime minister needs to be “friendly” toward, as seems to be the case, there will be grievous consequences — ultimately resulting in unrepresented constituencies turning to other forms of governance to achieve their legitimate interests. Regional separatist movements come immediately to mind as a means of pursuing such goals if the prime minister fails to provide adequate representation. Civil disobedience or even unrest is another possibility as can be seen by the protests in Quebec caused by the feeling of disenfranchisement of certain segments of society there. The scariest scenario is one where the prime minister and their supporters decide that being “big fish in a smaller pond” is preferable than fighting to maintain the Canadian federation. Savoie’s assertion that “[n]o Canadian prime minister wants the country to break up under his or her watch” may prove to be over-optimistic. A benevolent dictator could be elected that might take steps to limit prime ministerial power (using full prime ministerial power to achieve that end), but it’s more likely that subsequent holders of the office will further centralize power in their own hands. Short of a provincial or electorate revolt (which would take the form of showing up and actually voting), it could fall to the international community to condemn the direction that executive power in Canada is taking, and embarking on economic steps to bring pressure to bear on the situation. Regardless of the outcome, a counterbalance will ultimately have to be created against the incredible powers currently wielded by Canadian prime ministers.
( And the bibliography is here... )
But on to the essay, the topic given was: "In his essay The Rise of Court Government in Canada, Donald Savoie argues that court government has taken root in Canada… effective power rests with the prime minister and a small group of carefully selected courtiers. This assignment asks you to address this issue and answer the following: Are Canadian prime ministers too powerful? Your essay must take a clear position on the above question and must have a clear thesis statement. It should also address, in some way, the following: Even if “court government” is real, are prime ministers sufficiently accountable for their actions? and Has Stephen Harper significantly increased the powers of the prime minister, and/or made greater use of them, more than his predecessors? It is important that you focus on the office of the prime minister as an institution, rather than your views on particular prime ministers and their policies." And here it is:
Questions around the effectiveness and accountability of state governments is a matter of an ongoing debate that is as dynamic and constant as the nature of power itself. Controversy over the authority used or misused by the seemingly inevitable central figure(s) of state is often the focus of these ubiquitous political discussions. In Canada’s case, it is the individual in the role of prime minister that bears the brunt of this running commentary by the public, the press, the pundits, and academics alike. It is understandable in the Canadian context because, as Savoie states, “[i]t is hardly possible to overemphasize the fact that the Canadian prime ministers have few limits defining their political authority within the government” (Savoie 1999). The ambiguity of any limits on prime ministerial power is further enhanced by the largely Burkean constitution of Canada, where those “powers rest on custom and convention” (Dyck 2011). But the answer to the often central question in discussions of governance in Canada: “does the prime minister wield too much power?”, tends to depend strongly on whether they are acting in a manner consistent with one’s own expectations or desires, or whether the decisions they are making run counter to one’s perceived interests. If the former, the argument is often that the prime minister needs strong executive power to enact innovative solutions to “the issues” (whatever they may be at any given time); if the latter, the opinion is usually that they have obviously overstepped the bounds of the office and action must be taken to prevent a repeat of such behaviour in the future. Having lived through the reign of ten prime ministers, and thus having been witness to the dramatic centralization of power into the Prime Minister’s Office over that time, it seems that at least some of Canada’s electoral and governance woes can be blamed on this trend. Regardless of whether a government has generally moved in directions of the common good or not, versus special or regional interests, the inescapable conclusion must be that Canadian prime ministers are, in fact, too powerful.
( The rest of the essay is here... )
Are Canadian prime ministers too powerful? Without a doubt. What does this mean for governance in Canada? That is far less clear. Previous prime ministers have been described as “friendly dictators” (Thomas 2003), but if the people of Canada are no longer the constituency that the prime minister needs to be “friendly” toward, as seems to be the case, there will be grievous consequences — ultimately resulting in unrepresented constituencies turning to other forms of governance to achieve their legitimate interests. Regional separatist movements come immediately to mind as a means of pursuing such goals if the prime minister fails to provide adequate representation. Civil disobedience or even unrest is another possibility as can be seen by the protests in Quebec caused by the feeling of disenfranchisement of certain segments of society there. The scariest scenario is one where the prime minister and their supporters decide that being “big fish in a smaller pond” is preferable than fighting to maintain the Canadian federation. Savoie’s assertion that “[n]o Canadian prime minister wants the country to break up under his or her watch” may prove to be over-optimistic. A benevolent dictator could be elected that might take steps to limit prime ministerial power (using full prime ministerial power to achieve that end), but it’s more likely that subsequent holders of the office will further centralize power in their own hands. Short of a provincial or electorate revolt (which would take the form of showing up and actually voting), it could fall to the international community to condemn the direction that executive power in Canada is taking, and embarking on economic steps to bring pressure to bear on the situation. Regardless of the outcome, a counterbalance will ultimately have to be created against the incredible powers currently wielded by Canadian prime ministers.
( And the bibliography is here... )
