Different Scholars have studied and compared the Canadian’s parliamentary system and the American’s congressional system with an attempt to determine the one which is more effective and the one which has better capacity to uphold democratic principles. This argumentation will contribute to the discussion through comparison of strengths and weaknesses of the two systems. The points presented in this argumentation will not be inclined on one system but rather will highlight the weaknesses and strengths of both. It will also look at the effectiveness of each system and go ahead to prove that the Canadian’s traditional Westminster system is more effective when it comes to passing bills compared to the American congressional system. The paper will also look at the way power is spread in both systems. Finally, the stability of the American system compared to its Canadian counterpart will also be examined.
First, the Canadian parliamentary system is much more efficient at adopting legislation
and resolutions than its United Nations counterpart[1]. In the United States, both legislative and executive powers are divided into separate branches of the government. The executive, represented by the President, his cabinet and the Chief of Staff, is independently elected from the legislative power which is represented by the American Congress[2]. Congress is a bicameral system composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for a duration of two years while senators are elected after every 6 years. The role of the Senate is to provide support to the Lower House, through deliberations. Their job is to defend the interests of the population and control the activities of the House. The Senate also has the power to ask for bill amendments, or even completely do away with the bill. Senators can also initiate bills, except money bills. Finally, any piece of legislation that is to be adopted needs to be accepted by the Senate in addition to the vote in the Lower House.
The American Senate is similar to the Canadian one, both the executive and legislative powers are separated using the American system. This separation of power was set up in
order for the legislative to keep observe the executive’s actions and vice-versa. It is a
system of checks and balances. The executive does not sit in Congress hence cannot initiate legislation on its own. It has to do it through its representatives in Congress. The problem with the American congressional system is that this separation of power is causing the democratic process to encounter problems and stalemates, especially if Congress is composed of a majority of congressmen who are opposing the President’s party, a situation faced by the retired President Barack Obama[3].
The legislative authority has the powers to initiate and pass bills and resolutions and review them in the Senate, as stated in Article I of the American constitution. The President, representing
the executive, has to sign legislation for them to be valid. He also has the power to vet them. Also, the executive has to pass their platforms in Congress, meaning that every bill initiated by the legislative party in Congress representing the executive has to go through both chambers. For that reason, if the executive and Congress are dominated by a different party, it is unlikely that they will be willing to work together, since the Democrats and Republican platforms diverge on many aspects. One party defends liberal ideas while the other defends conservative ideas. Bipartisanship has been difficult to achieve in recent years, and thus it has been a challenge for recent American presidents to push forward their platform when working with a Congress led by the opposition. As a result, the democratic system is put on hold (Kristof). Effective ways to break the gridlock were voters’ referendum. They allowed some states to legalize marijuana, to reduce prison sentences and tighten gun control (Kristof). Others rights granted to the president include the negotiation of treaties, and the appointment of Federal judges, as stated in Article II of the American constitution. But these powers are limited and in no way compensate for the time lost in Congress. In comparison, Canada’s system is much more efficient. The executive and legislative authorities are part of the same organization, composed of the House of Commons and the Senate[4].
In Canada, the executive is composed of the Prime Minister and his cabinet which are part of the legislature. They are elected members of the House of Commons, as a result, the executive, in the case of a coalition or majority government, has the ability to pass bills and push forward their platform much easier, since the leading party does not have another power checking on them and reviewing their actions. In theory, that would be the job of the representative of the crown, which is the Governor General, and of the Senate. But in practice, he rarely interferes with state matters and his role is more symbolic. Since the Prime Minister appoints the Senate, it also rarely puts any roadblocks in the government’s way, and if it does, they are really light and compromises can be found easily (Coyne). One problem Canadians Prime Ministers face is a Senate led by the opposition, like is the case today. Harper appointed Senators during his ten- year rule as Prime Minister and they get to keep their seat until they turn seventy-five years, unlike in the United States. However, it would be illegitimate for them to block every bill going through the Upper House since they are nominated and not elected (Coyne), which is different from the American system. They do not represent the will of the popular vote, but the ideas of the Prime Minister who appoints them. What they will do though is make the government’s job more challenging, and ensure compromises are made to include some conservative’s interests (Coyne). So, because the executive and in connection the legislative power as well have less restrictions than the United States’ executive and legislative powers, the will and desires of people is more instituted within a parliamentary system, because the executive doesn’t encounter as much roadblocks or stalemates in the implementation of its political platform compared to the United States’ way of adopting legislation. Also, since the legislative contains the executive in Canada, bills adopted in the House of Commons come directly from the Prime Minister’s agenda. This is another significant difference between the two systems is the regularity in the electoral process.
In Canada, the political system is composed of a responsible government. The Prime Minister and the executive must have the support of the majority of the House and not the Crown in order to stay in power and the Governor General appoints the Prime Minister following an election (Young). So, theoretically, elections could be held at any time in the case of a minority governments or even coalition governments. A simple vote of non-confidence, a non-support of the budget or of the Thrown speech are enough to dismiss the Prime Minister, and to force the Governor General to seek a new one, already in the House or through another election. However, these situations only arise in the presence of a non-majority in the House[5].
In the United States, Congress is elected every two years and the Senate after six years. Since there are only two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, they are often occupying all the seats in both chambers. However, holding elections every second year is disruptive and dulls the importance of voting because of the constant campaigning. The political landscape is also changed frequently. As a result, politicians are constantly campaigning to get reelected in the next legislative election, so one could think that their work at the House of Representatives is more politically motivated than based on personal ideologies[6]. They only aim at pleasing donors and get influenced by their ideologies in order to receive funding for the next elections, which interferes with their duty to represent the interests of the people. Also, a lot of money is spent on continuous campaigning instead of being allocated to policy-making and legislation. Canada’s advantage in that aspect is that in the case of a majority government, elections are not held for four years, meaning that the party in power can focus on policy-making rather than campaigning, and can spend money more wisely in the society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the Canadian parliamentary system and the American Congressional system have their strengths and weaknesses. The Canadian system is much more efficient at adopting legislation, in America, however, power is not concentrated in the hands of the executive, which allows legislative and executive powers to monitor each other. They are not part of the same entity, unlike Canada, where the executive is part of the elected legislative power. Finally, the constant elections in the United States harms the democratic process going on in the House, since member of the House are focused on getting reelected and defending the interest of their donors.
Bibliography
Malcolmson, Patrick, Richard Myers, Gerald Baier, and Tom Bateman. The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2016.
Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional government: A study in American politics. Routledge, 2017.
[1]
Malcolmson, Patrick, Richard Myers, Gerald Baier, and Tom Bateman. The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2016.
[2]
Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional government: A study in American politics. Routledge, 2017.
[3]
Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional government: A study in American politics. Routledge, 2017.
[4]
Malcolmson, Patrick, Richard Myers, Gerald Baier, and Tom Bateman. The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2016.
[5]
Malcolmson, Patrick, Richard Myers, Gerald Baier, and Tom Bateman. The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2016.
[6]
Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional government: A study in American politics. Routledge, 2017.
