If it weren’t for the almighty prime ministers of HOCs past, surely Canada wouldn’t be the unproductive rentier state it has become under the iron fists of supreme leaders.
The entire point of the Westminster system is that PMs have tons of power.
dittbub on
Its paywalled, so I’m going to ask: whats the alternative proposed?
Desperate_Path_377 on
I think Coyne overstates the PM’s power. It’s true the PM has a high degree of control over Cabinet and the federal government generally. But Canada also has very strong limits in terms of federalism, charter rights and indigenous/treaty rights. Getting a policy through that intact requires very high levels of consultation and due diligence. The centralization of function in the PM is as a product of how limited federal power is.
> Conventional management theory teaches that, the greater the size of the operation, the more important it becomes to delegate authority to subordinates.
Is this really true? I understood there has been more recent critique of this as creating needless bloat at the middle management level and very vertical organization charts.
Current_Rutabaga4595 on
Nous devrions une culture politique plus forte. Au Royaume-Uni il y a une forte culture des MPs dictant la politique au gouvernement. Nous devrions avoir la même culture ici.
Demortus on
I’ve always thought it funny how many people criticize Presidential systems for giving too much power to the President. Yet, according to the U.S. Separation of Powers Model, the President is unable to make laws, unable to allocate spending, unable to make significant policy changes, and even the powers they do have (being Commander in Chief, imposing tariffs) are largely delegated by Congress, which can withdraw them if needed. To become a dictator, a President would first have to either intimidate Congress into submission, or use overt violence to remove them, both of which would be highly visible and prone to failure (as was seen recently in South Korea).
In a Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister has effectively *no* limits on what policy they can pass and execute, so long as their coalition holds together. The only check is elections and the judiciary, the latter of which only matters if they are given the power of judicial review. With parliament, you can have a smooth transition from electoral democracy to autocracy with little friction beyond public protests (like we’re seeing in Israel, and saw in Turkey).
9 Comments
Newsstream version: https://www.proquest.com/docview/3146860537/3FCAAB1962914B91PQ.
!ping Can&Democracy
If it weren’t for the almighty prime ministers of HOCs past, surely Canada wouldn’t be the unproductive rentier state it has become under the iron fists of supreme leaders.
/s
Two things can be real.
https://i.redd.it/de37vnwcuv7e1.gif
The entire point of the Westminster system is that PMs have tons of power.
Its paywalled, so I’m going to ask: whats the alternative proposed?
I think Coyne overstates the PM’s power. It’s true the PM has a high degree of control over Cabinet and the federal government generally. But Canada also has very strong limits in terms of federalism, charter rights and indigenous/treaty rights. Getting a policy through that intact requires very high levels of consultation and due diligence. The centralization of function in the PM is as a product of how limited federal power is.
> Conventional management theory teaches that, the greater the size of the operation, the more important it becomes to delegate authority to subordinates.
Is this really true? I understood there has been more recent critique of this as creating needless bloat at the middle management level and very vertical organization charts.
Nous devrions une culture politique plus forte. Au Royaume-Uni il y a une forte culture des MPs dictant la politique au gouvernement. Nous devrions avoir la même culture ici.
I’ve always thought it funny how many people criticize Presidential systems for giving too much power to the President. Yet, according to the U.S. Separation of Powers Model, the President is unable to make laws, unable to allocate spending, unable to make significant policy changes, and even the powers they do have (being Commander in Chief, imposing tariffs) are largely delegated by Congress, which can withdraw them if needed. To become a dictator, a President would first have to either intimidate Congress into submission, or use overt violence to remove them, both of which would be highly visible and prone to failure (as was seen recently in South Korea).
In a Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister has effectively *no* limits on what policy they can pass and execute, so long as their coalition holds together. The only check is elections and the judiciary, the latter of which only matters if they are given the power of judicial review. With parliament, you can have a smooth transition from electoral democracy to autocracy with little friction beyond public protests (like we’re seeing in Israel, and saw in Turkey).