Saturday, June 03, 2006
Angry Rough Neck Does an awesome job of delving into Senate reform by using the American system as a comparison.
Senate Reform: by Angry Rough Neck
So Harper has taken the first tenative steps towards reforming the senate. Not enough but a start. I could fill a book on why reform is morally necessary but instead I want to talk about why the Canadian government model is so susceptible to corruption.
Think Adscam could have happened anywhere in the world? That it is just a symptom of politics in general rather than specific to Canada? Well these things can happen anywhere but are they more prone to places like China, France, Russia and North Korea. Yes. Why? Because like Canada they all have massive unchecked governments. Let's examine the difference between a government model designed to check any one individual's power (American model) and the Canadian model, a system without checks on individual power
Presidential System Goals:
To provide as many checks on government initiatives as possible. It is a system designed to keep overzealous governments from infringing on the rights of its citizens or more specifically the rights of the individual citizen.
Parliamentary Goals:
To create a system in which the country’s own division is powerless to stagnate and stall the nation. The Parliamentary system de-emphasizes the importance of checks and instead is specifically designed to allow a party leader to be able to efficiently run a country.
The importance of a federalist ideology was seen as paramount in Canada, a country so divisively divided that separation or war always seemed imminent. It sought to avoid the potential dangers (civil war) that could evolve (as was witnessed down south) when a split country is allowed too many checks on the others power. Stagnation only increases frustration eventually causing war. This is interesting, although the United States created a freer society it did succumb to war because of the division created through those “rightful” choices. Canada an equally divided nation did not succumb to war, although it was through the art of compromise, appeasement and policies antagonistic to the virtue of choice. 200 years later, still with policies more sensitive to individualism and choice America is a Unified country, whereas Canada, successful at avoiding war, but still disunited, apathetic, subversive and unhappy as a population. (A country defined through the negative values of tolerance, pacifism and metaphysical equality)
Legislative:
Read on it gets better
I'm not to proud to admit our political system is flawed are you? If so question why.
So Harper has taken the first tenative steps towards reforming the senate. Not enough but a start. I could fill a book on why reform is morally necessary but instead I want to talk about why the Canadian government model is so susceptible to corruption.
Think Adscam could have happened anywhere in the world? That it is just a symptom of politics in general rather than specific to Canada? Well these things can happen anywhere but are they more prone to places like China, France, Russia and North Korea. Yes. Why? Because like Canada they all have massive unchecked governments. Let's examine the difference between a government model designed to check any one individual's power (American model) and the Canadian model, a system without checks on individual power
Presidential System Goals:
To provide as many checks on government initiatives as possible. It is a system designed to keep overzealous governments from infringing on the rights of its citizens or more specifically the rights of the individual citizen.
Parliamentary Goals:
To create a system in which the country’s own division is powerless to stagnate and stall the nation. The Parliamentary system de-emphasizes the importance of checks and instead is specifically designed to allow a party leader to be able to efficiently run a country.
The importance of a federalist ideology was seen as paramount in Canada, a country so divisively divided that separation or war always seemed imminent. It sought to avoid the potential dangers (civil war) that could evolve (as was witnessed down south) when a split country is allowed too many checks on the others power. Stagnation only increases frustration eventually causing war. This is interesting, although the United States created a freer society it did succumb to war because of the division created through those “rightful” choices. Canada an equally divided nation did not succumb to war, although it was through the art of compromise, appeasement and policies antagonistic to the virtue of choice. 200 years later, still with policies more sensitive to individualism and choice America is a Unified country, whereas Canada, successful at avoiding war, but still disunited, apathetic, subversive and unhappy as a population. (A country defined through the negative values of tolerance, pacifism and metaphysical equality)
Legislative:
Read on it gets better
I'm not to proud to admit our political system is flawed are you? If so question why.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
