Canadian Senate

Members of the Senate, also known as the Upper House of the Canadian Parliament, are named by the governor-general depending on the prime minister's recommendations. In order to be named as a senator in Canada, a person must be 30 years old and have a certain amount of land. A senator, in fact, is estimated to be worth $4000 in non-mortgaged land. The Senate plays a special place in the Canadian legislature. In addition to a parliamentary capacity in which they consider and amend the constitution, the Canadian Senate is engaged in government-related inquiries. Also, the senators represent the interests of various regions in Canada in the parliament. A debate as to whether the Canadian Senate should be reformed has been ongoing for a considerable period. Questions have arisen as to whether the senators should be elected or continue to be appointees of the governor general. Also, controversy exists as to whether the process of removing a senator from their positions should be made simple. From a personal viewpoint, the Canadian Senate needs to be reformed to enhance its ability to respond to the issues that affect the Canadians.
The first rationale for the reforming the Senate is that being appointees of the governor general; they are more accountable to the appointing authority compared to the general populace. Voting constitutes an essential component of democracy. Through the ballot, the citizens transfer their power to their preferred persons to exercise and champion for their interests on their behalf (Micozzi 138). Further, elections make it possible for the electorate to evaluate the performance of their representatives so that they accomplish the goals and promises of the voters made during the electioneering period. The appointment of the Canadian senator does not echo democracy in any way. Being appointees, the taking up of the senatorial positions are under the influence of multiple factors out of which the will of the masses, whom they are obligated to serve, does not count. The method through which the senators ascend to their positions is a predisposing factor for the manipulation of by the appointing authority. Such means that the general public cannot hold them accountable for failure to meet their obligations.
A second reason why the Senates need to be reformed is the inability of the citizens to take corrective measures towards attaining efficiency and accountability of the senators for the citizens. According to Adam, Antonis, and Pantelis (84) asserts that the electoral process is one of the ways through which inefficiencies of governments can be kept in check. Through elections, governments and other institutional bodies such as the Senate are aware that their capacity to retain power is dependent on the extent to which they meet the expectations of the citizen. Reforming the position of a senator from that of an appointee to an elected position will be progressive towards ensuring that they undertake their duties. Additionally, through the recognition of the fact that the citizens have the power to impeach them, they will be able to respond to the needs of the people to guarantee employment to full term or a re-election after the elapse of their terms. The reforms will limit manipulation of the senators by the government and enhance the formulation of sound policies.
Contrary to this view, the opponents of reforms in the Senate argue that being elected by the citizens is not a guarantee of democracy. Just like the appointment by the governor general may be marred with manipulations, the general populace can also be manipulated or the electoral process itself as has been seen in other countries. Leaders who ascend to power through such means exhibit leads to concern for the interests of the electorate. The Senate, being a constitutional body in Canada is guided by the dictates of the laws of the land, and are not able to act in a manner that contradicts the interest of the public. Another argument is that the vulnerability of a leader to manipulation is based on personal attributes. Personal attributes, especially virtue determine whether a senator is likely to be influenced by the powers who installed them in the positions (Brinke et al.). Such renders the argument that the appointing authority can easily influence appointed senators invalid. Through this viewpoint, the opponents of reforms to the Senate justify their position on the matter.
In conclusion, reforms to the Canadian Senate are long overdue. The continued delay in making changes to the Senate translates the persistence of the ineffectiveness and failure of Senate to advance the interests of the citizens. Through changing the senatorial positions to elective positions, the country will be making a progressive step towards attaining an effective Senate, whose activities resonate with the needs of the common man. Therefore, as a country, we will be making the Senate a critical organ in the making of sounds laws in the interest of the needs of the citizens.


Works Cited
Adam, Antonis, Manthos D. Delis, and Pantelis Kammas. "Are democratic governments more efficient?." European Journal of Political Economy 27.1 (2011): 75-86.
Brinke, Leanne, et al. "Virtues, vices, and political influence in the US senate." Psychological science 27.1 (2016): 85-93.
Micozzi, Juan Pablo. "Does electoral accountability make a difference? Direct elections, career ambition, and legislative performance in the Argentine Senate." The Journal of Politics75.1 (2012): 137-149.