Pros And Cons Of Devolution In Norway And Canada

Aboriginal self-government is a long standing issue that continues to be a struggle for the First Nations People. To truly understand the scope of Aboriginal self-government within First Nations communities, more effort is needed to understand the legislative system that runs Canada. This issue of self-governance has been very destructive in First Nations communities. After signing the Treaties, First Nations People was stripped of their livelihood and from that point on to abide by the Dominion of Canadas legislative policies. One current issue that would be a perfect example is the Nisga People in British Columbia who is no longer under the protection of the

Second, Canada’s First Nations’ plight can be improved through self-governance. According to Pocklington, “For several years, Canadian aboriginal leaders have been demanding the recognition of a right of Native self-determination and thereby, for the aboriginal collectivities that choose it a right of self-government” (102). Aboriginal self-governance is a controversial issue in Canada. Before researching the issue I believed that self-governance would deter national unity, after further investigation, I presently believe that the claim for Aboriginal self-governance is justifiable. Although, according to Blakeney, “It will be a real challenge to make effective

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

The movement of Quebec sovereignty, if it were to be implemented, would have substantial consequences, not only on Quebec but also on Canada as a whole. For this reason, the movement should be challenged. It is ironic how much of Quebec advocates for independence, yet the effects would be economically detrimental. If Quebec succeeded in being granted independence, it “would need to negotiate with the rest of Canada about assuming its share of federal debt” (Ragan, Christopher). This additional debt, which would equate approximately to 154 billion dollars, would be equal to 92 percent of the province’s gross domestic product (Ragan, Christopher). Undoubtedly, this would shake Quebec’s fiscal stability. There is also the possibility of Quebec

government is not the only government that has power; provincial governments have a role in

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

The first paper by Ladner and Orsini, (2003) gives a detailed account, review and analysis of the First nations governance act. The paper reflects on the act and provides arguments supporting the fact that it is an example of a gentler, subtle form of colonialism that is still in practice today. It argues that although the government has well researched the problems affecting the first nations, it has not efficiently advocated the involvement of these people in their own welfare and improvement.

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

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

Devolution is the transfer of powers from a central body to subordinate regional bodies. In Scotland, Devolution was set up to restore legitimacy to a system of government that reflected Scottish preferences. The reason behind the demand for Scottish self-government is that Scotland had the historic status of nationhood before the Union of 1707 and within the Union, has a different set of legal, educational and religious institutions that reinforce a Scottish identity.

The origin of Devolution can be traced to Donald Campbell Dewar (21 August 1937 – 11 October 2000). He is generally referred to as the ‘architect of Devolution’ as well as the ‘advocate for Scottish devolution’. And as such, he was elected Scotland’s first First minister in the 1999 election. As

Among academics, political leaders, and government representatives differences of opinion and concern abound: differences about the most beneficial structure of self-government, about who controls what, about when self-government should be implemented, about whether or not a true form self-government can ever be achieved.

As a child develops into an adult there are critical developmental steps that are necessary for a complete and successful transition. The physical transition is the most obvious change, but underneath the thick skin and amongst the complex systems, exists another layer of transitions. Ideas, rationales, ideologies and beliefs all dwell within this layer of each being. It could be said that a nation can also fit this transitional framework. A nation grows in both size (wealth, population, power), and in ideological maturity (emancipation of slaves, civil rights, women’s rights…etc). This constant evolution of ideas and size is the foundation of a successful government. Without change and

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate Henry Hale’s article “Divided we Stand: Institutional Sources for Ethno federal State Survival and Collapse”. Hale’s attempts to respond to the criticism leveled against ethnofederalism, which posits that ethnofederal institutional arrangement leads to secession and consequently failure of central state. He argues that existence of a core ethnic region facilitates separatism and secessionism, which if addressed will resolve the misconception about ethnofederalism. His theory of a state’s collapse is solid and well argued. However, there are some contradictions in its casual mechanism, which can be perfected with further research. This review proceeds as follows. The first section provides a brief summary of the article. The second section discusses the articles methodology, and the last section provides critique of the article.