Advantages And Disadvantages Of Canada Despotism

Now that you are up to date with currents events I will briefly touch on some strong point of the Canadian democratic system. Citizens in Canada indirectly hold power in a free electoral system and are given better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than other systems of government. The freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and the freedom of the media allow citizens to vote in favour of their own interest. Democracy in Canada is rooted on the grounds of equal rights; this gives people equality before the law, human rights, free and fair elections and so on. In comparison to the Third World, power is in the hands of the “Big Men”, the police and army are the ones who hold control not the people and where corruption is a norm, Canada may look like a utopia. Another strong point in the Canadian political system is everyone no matter race or sex has the right to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen over the age of eighteen. Until the 60s/70s parties would make up electoral boundaries this was done to increase the number of votes in that location this is called gerrymander, this was unfair because certain parties had an advantage over others. However, now under the Electoral Boundaries Commissions this problem does not occur and no party has the upper hand over another. Interestingly the

When it comes to certain qualities and attributes of the United States of America and Canada, many people residing elsewhere fail to tell the difference. The accents of people from certain parts of both countries, for instance, are so incredibly indistinguishable that they baffle any and everyone. Besides this one factor, they even share some comparable cultural characteristics, such as driving on the right side of the road and cherishing the same basic human rights to the utmost importance. Likewise, there are several similarities between multiple aspects of the countries’ respective governments, including within their individual established frameworks, political systems, and their divisions of authorities and duties. These could potentially point out a reason as to why Canada and the United States are immensely successful in their particular objectives, and are on their paths to achieving their long-term goals with difficult to accomplish, yet beneficial visions. After all, they are both either on the way to becoming or currently are two of world’s leading superpowers (Financial Post). However, there is not just one particular infallible way to rule a country and push it to further advancement simultaneously. In fact, each country works and functions differently, which is primarily due to individual background and history. Ultimately, although Canada and the United States of America are both nations that share similarities in various parts of their Constitutions, political

When one thinks of Canada, he/she is most likely to stereotypically comment on a subject regarding hockey, beavers, maple syrup, and cold weather. However, not many stop and wonder about how Canada became the peaceful nation it is today. Throughout Canada’s relatively short and brief history, it has managed to flourish into a strong and powerful nation. Canada’s peaceful identity has been formed with meaningful historic events that have occurred throughout our history.It’s identity has been characterized by Lester B. Pearson's role during the suez canal, their involvement in the Vietnam war, and its engagement in peacekeeping missions around the world.

Canadian identity wasn’t always stereotypically related to polar bears, maple syrup and beavers. Various movements in the 20th century began the development of Canadian identity. Aspects of Canadian society such as technology, peacekeeping and immigration gave Canada a distinct identity. Technology distinguished Canada as a developed nation amongst others with advanced transportation, communication and electricity. Peacekeeping is also an essential part in Canada's identity as it displays effort and desire for world peace, which is something many individuals embrace. Lastly, diversity in Canada is recognized worldwide and plays a major role in Canadian identity. Through technology, peacekeeping and immigration during the 20th century, Canadian

As time goes on, some countries become more relevant in the global sphere while others start to fade away. Canada is a country that only becomes more relevant as time goes on. Since being granted full sovereignty, Canada has had a growing role as a major world player. Much of their international growth has to do with its close ties to the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the country has also undergone huge change and refocusing on a domestic level. With influence from both Europe and the United States, Canada has a very unique system of governing. This paper will focus on a few major areas of Canada. It will look into the history of Canada, the structure of its government, its politics, and many of the major issues it faces today.

Canadian history has been profoundly shaped by numerous events. The fifteenth Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau remains one of the greatest citizens to define the nation’s identity. During his fifteen years in the position, he makes multiple decisions and contributions of great importance towards the growth and prosperity of Canadian society. As a result of his ambitions and efforts, widespread popularity known as “Trudeaumania” begins as a phenomenon that had existed like no other before his time (Gwyn 14). “He touched the dreams of an entire generation of Canadians” and his fame will continue for future Canadian generations, as his accomplishments positively affected the country, leaving an enduring legacy that propels a still-flourishing Canadian ideal of peace and perseverance (Gzowski Peter and more 50). Further to his overall popularity amongst Canadian citizens, Pierre Trudeau is a defining figure in Canada’s rich history, as he unites Quebec with the rest of Canada, he is responsible for the passing of both the Constitution Act in 1982 and the Multicultural Act in 1971.

Its often said that because of the events of the Second World War that Canada grew as a country. Even noted in the London Daily Telegraph when they said “no country has grown in international stature so swiftly and markedly as Canada has done... hers has often been a lonely voice of reason,”12. This statement defines Canada's actions in its development as a middle power – the voice of reason in many international affairs. This is true especially of these two crises that Canada dealt

Prior to the Quebec Referendums, many national movements in regards to national movement which drove nationalism of French ethnicity. In order to understand what the Quebec Referendums reveal about Canadian government reveals, the context the Quebec Referendum was set needs to be understood as well as the existing strained relationship between Canadians and Quebecois. Prior to the referendums, Quebec nationalists and federalists have been dominant figures in Canadian politics. In essence, this paper explores 1) the context prior to the referendum in order to illustrate the significance of the Quebec referendum, 2) briefly discuss the referendum results and 3) tie in the following in order to exemplify what the Quebec Referendums reveal about Canadian Government. As this paper will illustrate, the referendums are multi-faceted issues and as Boucher brings up, what happen to the true Canadianism, "compromising to avoid confrontation and reaching consensus"? Unfortunately for Quebecois, in order to protect their distinct identity, they have been depicted as an insensitive tyrant by dealing with direct confrontation. On a superficial level, the Quebec Referendums reveal the Canadian government is divided amongst two distinct cultures of Quebecois and Inuit who make up a

During the 1920’s and 30’s, Canada gained political, economic, and social autonomy through several crucial events. To begin with, Autonomy is defined as a nation's independence from another countries obstruction in its domestic affairs, which could simply mean having the power to govern oneself and make one’s own decisions. During the Interwar period, Canada was involved in several events. However, this time around Canada was not just around as Britain’s puppet, but there as a conscious being aware of its own actions. The one similar aspect is that Canada was still quite influenced by Britain and now even America. Otherwise, Canada had started to build up its own autonomy throughout these events in the political, social, and economical properties,

This essay looks to discuss Quebec sovereigntists and federalists, and how they differ in their understandings of Canada and Quebec. To accomplish this, the paper looks at three points of contention; how to understand history, the nature of the Quebec state, and recognition of Quebec. The three points of contention show where the two view diverge and why, but the paper views these points as merely pieces of the puzzle. As such only after looking at all three points does the paper reach a conclusion about the real differences between the two views. The paper concludes that sovereigntists view Quebec as distinct enfranchised nation within the confines of Canada, and while viewing Canada as a subjugator and an enemy to Quebec. In comparison,

Canada’s development from a self-governing British colony to a completely independent country was an evolutional process. To start off, at the beginning of the 20th century, in regards to the relationship between Canada and Britain, Canada was still greatly connected with Britain. As Canada was a dominion of the British Empire. This meant that when Britain declared war, Canada was expected to follow, as British colonialism was largely prevalent in Canada and Canadians accepted and took Britain’s problems as their own. In the starting, Canada was largely linked to Britain, but throughout the 20th century, Canadians began to slowly cut ties with Britain.

During the twentieth century, Canada as a nation witnessed and endured several historical events that have had a deep and profound influence on Canadian politics. The most influential and constant force in twentieth century Canadian politics has been the increasing power and command of Quebec nationalism and the influence it has had on Canadian politics today. Quebec nationalism has shaped the structure and dynamics of Canadian federalism from a centralized to a decentralized form of federal government (Beland and Lecours 2010, 423). The decentralization of several sectors within the Canadian government has been a direct effect of Quebec nationalism. Decentralization has led to more autonomy among the provincial governments, especially in

Yet, despite this critical shortcoming, curiously, the common denominator in the framing of a national Canadian identity is nevertheless institutional, even by detractors, and completely sidesteps the implication of Parliament’s unclear role. Canadian self-consciousness, presuming such a concept exists, is fickle. Outside Quebec, George Grant in Lament for a Nation lampooned the notion of an indigenious Canadian identity as a failed but tried experiment, an identity of statist Tory conservativism never meant to be in a divided nation, let alone to stand manifest in a converging North America. Parliament, Grant argued, failed to live up in practice to its ideal – but his mid-1960s requiem for an independent Canada did not fully materialize, or at least not yet. Institutionally-speaking, other theories implied Canadian national sovereignty was born an accident in the making. Both Seymour Lipset and Louis Hartz swapped Canadian agency in defining its own “Canadianism” for the coattails of the American War of Independence, the former as Canada the foundational bulwark of the Loyalist counter-revolution and the latter as the fragments of the European revolution itself. Key to all three theories is the role of federal institutions, whose political role for its most predominant cousin is stubbornly not defined. Put in other words, the exception is not

What is Canada? What is a Canadian? Canada, to employ Voltaire's analogy, is nothing but “a few acres of snow.”. Of course, the philosopher spoke of New France, when he made that analogy. More recently, a former Prime Minister, Joe Clark, said that the country was nothing but a “community of communities”. Both these images have helped us, in one way or another, try to interpret what could define this country. On the other hand, a Canadian could be a beer, a hockey-playing beaver or even a canoe floating in a summer day's sunset. A Canadian could also be a “sovereigntyphobe”, refusing to see the liquefaction, albeit political, of the second largest country in the world.

As the 20th century comes to an end, Canada is a transcontinental nation whose interests and representatives span the face of the globe and extend into every sphere of human behaviour. However this was not always the case. When the four colonies of British North America united to create Canada on July 1, 1867, the new country's future was by no means secure. Canada was a small country, with unsettled borders, vast empty spaces, and a large powerful neighbour, the United States. Confronting these challenges was difficult for the young country. Though Canada was independent in domestic matters, Britain retained control over its foreign policy. Over the next fifty or so years, Canada's leaders and its