Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Why we have rampant corruption in Canadian Politics

Think Adscam could have happened anywhere in the world? That it is just a symptom of politics in general rather than specific to Canada? Well these things can happen anywhere but are they more prone to places like China, France, Russia and North Korea. Yes. Why? Because like Canada they all have massive unchecked governments. Let's examine the difference between a government model designed to check any one individual's power (American model) and the Canadian model, a system without checks on individual power

Presidential System Goals:
1) To provide as many checks on government initiatives as possible. It is a system designed to keep overzealous governments from infringing on the rights of its citizens or more specifically the rights of the individual citizen.

Parliamentary Goals:
To create a system in which the country’s own division is powerless to stagnate and stall the nation. The Parliamentary system de-emphasizes the importance of checks and instead is specifically designed to allow a party leader to be able to efficiently run a country. The importance of a federalist ideology was seen as paramount in Canada, a country so divisively divided that separation or war always seemed imminent. It sought to avoid the potential dangers (civil war) that could evolve (as was witnessed down south) when a split country is allowed too many checks on the others power. Stagnation only increases frustration eventually causing war. This is interesting, although the United States created a freer society it did succumb to war because of the division created through those “rightful” choices. Canada an equally divided nation did not succumb to war, although it was through the art of compromise, appeasement and policies antagonistic to the virtue of choice. 200 years later, still with policies more sensitive to individualism and choice America is a Unified country, whereas Canada, successful at avoiding war, but still disunited, apathetic, subversive and unhappy as a population. (A country defined through the negative values of tolerance, pacifism and metaphysical equality)

Legislative-- House of Commons/ House of representatives:
No free votes in the house of commons (a travesty)
The lack of free votes removes accountability from the elected representatives in the sense that “they were sympathetic to constituents, but had to tow the company line”. And who then is accountable? The unelected Prime Minister?
The carrot of “senate appointment” ensures uniformity amongst house representatives
A majority in the House of Commons allows the ruling party to appoint the Prime Minister, which removes another check on the power of the house.
* Parliamentary powers are destined to be ruled by outside influences (Maurice Strong + Power corp.) due to the inherent nature in which they operate. A local representative is voted into power. The party officials “vote” in a leader. The lack of free votes in the Parliament condemns the local representative to the party’s whims which are decided by the appointed leader (a leader not voted in by the population)
The Senate:
In a Presidential system Senators are elected independent of the congress and President, which provides a check against congress and even a secondary check on the President. Senators are elected in equal numbers per state (2), which acts as a regional check on population based initiatives (banning large trucks… a bill which would be much more detrimental to a rural population that to an urban population)
In Canada…
Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister
An appointed Senator is not a check on the ruling party when the ruling party chooses which senators to appoint.
There is no regional check against population based policies (NEP). As the appointment of Senators is left up to the ruling party who have little interest representing views outside of the “inner circle”.

Executive-- President/ Prime Minister
Americans elect their president independent of their Congressman and Senator, which allows them to have a local and national voice, and which also creates another check on congress and the Senate.
Canadians have their Prime Minister appointed by the party which holds the most seats. Whoever the party brass wishes to have elected is always ran in a secure riding to prevent competition as the title of MP is the only requirement to office.

Judicial-- judges

In the parliamentary system judges to the supreme court are appointed by the Prime Minister without a legislative vote. In the Parliamentary (Canadian) system judges have the ability to make amendments to the constitution and thus change fundamental laws (these are usually “amended” to the benefit of the party that appointed them.

In the presidential system judges are appointed by the President, but must face question periods before a vote is held to decide to whether or not accept the judicial nomination. Once elected a judges role is to interpret the constitution not to amend it “for the better”.

The American Political model was specifically designed to prevent a government from increasing its arbitrary powers over the rights of its citizens, so that government could never become overzealous and over powerful. In contrast the Canadian model was to speed this coerciveness up. Hence the rampant social engineering, scandal, theft, appeasement, side deals and accountability associated with the Canadian way


At 5:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One could argue that the Supreme Court should act as a rectifatory mechanism for the laws in order to ensure that they are just and fair as the designers of them would have intended. I think Aristotle makes a powerful argument on the need with rectifatory processes in the legal system and I think the Supreme Court is the best body to fulfill this.

Also, is social engineering always bad? Is it bad for the government to promote better ways of life (for example, campaigns against smoking and for a healthier lifestyle). Humans by nature are lazy and greedy. The government, for the sake of society (the whole being more powerful than the rugged individual), and for the sake of its finances (healthcare costs) needs to do this and has a DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to do so in order to ensure its citizens live a better life because its citizens generally will not do so out of free choice.

Democracy is fundamentally flawed because it is a system based around each individual demanding satisfaction for their own greedy desires rather than for the good of society. In that way, one could argue that Aristotle is correct in believing that democracy is one step above anarchy. Plato argues that democracy devolves into tyranny. I would argue that anarchy devolves into tyranny.

At 7:11 AM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

Aristotle and Plato were both talking about "pure" democracy being a tyranny of the majority over the rights of the individual. This is why the Greek system failed. Thius is why the Roman system -- everyone is equal under the rule of law-- flourished.

The American system is a republic (a democracy bound by fundamental laws-- meant to protect individual rights) and even the Canadian way is arepresentative democracy (which also seeks to protect individual rights).
Your argument against democracy aligned with your case that man is lazy and greedy sounds totaletarian. "I know whats best for the ignorant people" and is another sign that leftism is entrenched in misery and pessemism. Man is naturally a free creature that seeks to build a strong life through the virtues over productivity and reason and it terrifies me to hear people talk the way you do.

At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Canadians are much too high to worry about anything other than their moral superiority! Government models are for prudes

At 2:17 PM, Blogger Dancing Crow said...

Hey "Anony-mouse" don't you have the nerve to declare yourself openly when you wish to use ad-hominem attacks against your learned betters.

At 11:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then why is there more corruption in the American system? In kind of a fundamental thing you failed to address.

At 4:55 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

"Then why is ther more corruption in the American model?"
Are you kidding me? I would like some evidence. And remeber we are nation of 30 million and they are a nation of 300 million. To claim there is more corruption and misuse of funds in the states is naive at best and I am being kind. And then look at how there scandal is punished compared to ours.IE Libby and Delay.

At 7:15 PM, Blogger Socialist Swine said...


Well when major figures in the Whitehouse are being indicted for various crimes (such as Karl Rove and Tom DeLay) and the President has by fiat pushed through various appointments despite a lack of senatorial assent, it seems that perhaps the congressional model employed by the US is just as flawed as that of Canada. I think the problem isn't necessarily with what system of government is employed. The problem is that government is given the responsibility of regulating itself, which seems to be rather stupid approach.

-Socialist Swine

At 9:45 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

Yes but the main difference between the two systems is that the Americans designed their system with as many checks as possible on the nesesarry govt groups-- judical, legislative and executive, so that no group could get trample forth under only its edict. While the Canadian model was built on effciency, so that no group could hold up government mandates. IE this is why gay marriage can become law without even going through the legislature (I am not making acomment on gay marriage but rather the process which decided something contreversial without even debate)

At 9:48 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

PS. look at Harriet Meirs. the president was not allowed to push through his own agenda. But in canada paul Martin can appoint for the supreme court whoover he wants to. And if they could, would an appointed senate debate him? An elected senate is loyal to its voters and an appointed is only loyal to the appointee.

At 9:46 AM, Blogger NL-ExPatriate said...

Great piece!
It's unfathomable that Canada with 30 million can have a democratic deficit in comparison to the US with 300 million.
It is not fault other than the system.
Here is a starting place for change A petition for a triple E E E senate.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home