Brokerage Politics In Canada

David E. Smith’s book, The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, contends that studies pertaining to the Crown should be revived because the Crown is the least understood institution in Canada. He claims the crown to be a structuring principle of government. While arguing the Crown’s centrality in Canadian politics, he posits that the Crown and its prerogatives empower the political executive and make it efficient, to the extent that it can produce an effect (x-xi).

Fred Cutler and Matthew Mendelsohn’s article “Unnatural Loyalists or Naive Collaborationists? The governments and Citizens of Canadian Federalism”, delved into a compelling analysis of Canadian citizens and federalism. In a country of much diversity, as discussed in lecture, it is difficult for citizens to hold the ‘right’ government accountable because of the blame shifting each level of government does. To give an illustration, this article briefly touches upon the propaganda the provincial and federal government use to shift blame on one another for policies such as healthcare and education. However Cutler and Mendelsohn go one step further and analyze if Canadian citizens are able to judge policies without allowing their provincial status

The Liberal party was successful in the past due to its ability to reinvent itself in order to meet the changing circumstances and needs. The ‘proactive’ Liberal was strangely absent in the pre-2011 election campaign and turned themselves into a reactive and passive entity just to defend and respond to the opposition’s unscrupulous campaign of personal attacks and vilification. Liberals were always based firm on their political values and philosophy; however, these vital elements of the party were not seen to being used during the campaign for 2011 election as much as it was seen being caught in the mud-tossing against the Harper Government.

It is interesting to note that this sweep, in which the Progressive-Conservatives essentially dominated in all provinces never got the same attention that the Liberals' victories had received in the 1960s and 1970s and in particular Trudeau's stature among the population versus Mulroney's is noteworthy. There was no sort of Mulroneymania among the press and the general population. The question is why did Mulroney fail, despite having greater electoral success in 1984 than Trudeau did in 1968, why was Mulroney unable to capture the same amount of the enthusiasm that Trudeau had in 1968? It may have to do with the fact that many of the key platform planks among the Liberals and the Progressive-Conservatives were similar, in particular when it came to Quebec. I was surprised just how closely Mulroney's Quebec policy, despite being a Progressive-Conservative, mirrored that of Trudeau's. In addition, when it comes to discussing Quebec politics, it is rather surprising to see the Quebec population, which was by-in-large politically left-leaning, vote en masse for a Progressive-Conservative party running on a neoconservative platform, the fact that Mulroney promised

idea of turning Canada back to its original roots. He compares Harper's government system with Pierre Trudeau’s. Arguing about the struggles and failures of

Apart from that, polls were also against Harper throughout most of the election. According to CBC(2015), Harper’s personal ratings in British Columbia and Ontario were poor in July 2015, two provinces that were key to his victory in 2011. In October, during the campaign, his approval ratings reached new lows during the campaign, with 49% against him, according to Abacus Data. With poor prospects for Harper, some voters may strategically vote for other parties instead of Harper. Apart from strategic voting, some say that “voter fatigue” may also have led to a loss of votes for Harper since many want “change,” as stated by polls conducted by CTV News(2015), suggesting that 66% people said they were ready for a change.

Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has

How can the Canadian government be dominated by one ruler when it has democratic elections with many competing parties? Mellon believes that Canadian elections have low voter turnouts and even lower public interest. Canadian elections are essentially sporadic. Finally, Mellon also believes that prime ministers “…are supported by a growing circle of advisors, pollsters, and spin doctors that help protect their position,” (Hugh 175). The main focus of Mellon’s argument is this idea of a prime-ministerial government.

Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of

The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen

There is a fundamental problem with the democratic process in Canada. This problem is rooted within our electoral system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system (MMP) at the federal level if we wish to see the progression of modern democracy. The failure to do so will result in a stagnant political system that is caught in the past and unable to rise to the contemporary challenges that representative democracies face. If Canada chooses to embrace the MMP electoral system it will reap the benefits of greater proportionality, prevent the centralization of power that is occurring in Parliament and among political parties through an increased

Since the beginning of Canadian history, regionalism has had a prominent effect on the country`s political system. The concept of regionalism can be defined as a political ideology grounded on a shared sense of place or attachment and is discussed in terms of Canadian society, culture, economy and politics.1 From the days of confederation, Canada has developed into regional cleavages and identities based on various geographical characteristics, traditional lifestyles and economic interests. Two of Canada`s greatest regionally distinct political cultures are known as Western alienation and Quebec nationalism.2 Historically, the lack of regional awareness and accommodation within Canada’s central government has given rise to a great deal

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

In recent elections, the separatist parties in Quebec have seen crushing defeats, raising questions about their relevance in modern day Canada. Support for Quebec separatism has diminished in the past several decades, with the rise of the NDP in the 2011 federal election and the more recent provincial Liberal victory in April of 2014. In the 2011 federal election, specifically, the Bloc Quebecois was reduced to only four seats in the House of Commons, while the NDP took the majority of Quebec’s seats. The provincial Parti Quebecois (PQ) has also been faltering, losing more often than not to the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ). Indeed, over the past decade, the PLQ has only lost one election, and has held majorities in many. The most recent election put them back into power after a short PQ minority government that began in 2012. These recent elections may point to a future in which the separatist movement in Quebec may be silenced. Since the late 1950s, the question of Quebec separatism has existed, with levels of support varying throughout the following decades, leading up the referendums of 1980 and 1995. The defeats suffered by the separatist parties in recent elections demonstrate that the separatist movement may be close to being over in Quebec.

At a glance, the Liberal and Conservative party may look like they occupy opposite sides of the Canadian political spectrum. However, when examined closely one can find many similarities between both parties. Marland and Wesley define brokerage parties as “shock absorbers” because they aim to confide regional conflicts. For example, The Conservatives in 2006, under Stephen harper aimed to reach power through various promises that aimed to appeal to different regions and/or different groups of people. For example: