Some historical theorists say that the dissimilarities between America and Canada are established in the Revolution of America, a subject that dominated most studies in the history of Canadian. With the creation of the US, the core founders of the US supported republicanism, refusing the Westminster structure of parliamentary democracy. Republicanism that inspired Americans pressured independence, an aversion to corruption, and innovation, counterbalanced by an apparent need for loyalty to public duty.
Many Americans in planning a unique American path, freighted, and therefore refusing, a sturdy nation, which is central government. This paper looks into the different ways to which the Canadian political structures differs with those of the US. America and Canada are both governed under constitutions; Canada’s constitution is partly conventional and partly written, and that of the US fully codified. The ultimate interpreter of the constitutions of both countries is their own supreme courts.
Nevertheless, the High Court of the US has a more stretched history of constitutional implementation than the High Court of Canada. Canada’s Constitution contains of Acts of both the legislature of the UK and the National Assembly of Canada, but because of the Canada’s federalism, several Acts of regional parliaments like the lawmaking Assembly of Ontario. The Constitution was altered in 1982, at which the Canadian Charter of Rights, Freedoms and amending formulas were included.
The other one basic concept on these differences is the dissimilarity between the US congressional system and the Canadian parliamentary system. More differences occur from the legal/political perception of division of powers and the authority of the head of state. The President of the US is the head of government and head of state, while Canada’s Prime Minister is not head state but only head of government (Charlton, 1998). Another distinction is the Governor General and his or her cabinet ministers- also playing roles as legislators, represent the combination of power in Canada’s system, with the part of the monarch.
Ministers of the crown are normally directly elected by their respective electorates known as ridings who advise the monarch or the Vice Governor General on how to practice his Crown authority and as Members of the legislature in the Canadian House of Commons. Even though neither the Governor general nor monarchs are lawfully required to select his or her cabinet Members from the House. This indicates those in charge of executive duties also contribute as legislators in the policy discussions and lawmaking process features of their duties as Members of National Assembly.
By contrast, the US president has no official duty as a legislator, but only implementing and enforcing laws passed by Congress. The President of the US contributes in only informal, occasional, gatherings with Senators and Representatives. Only formally, addresses once in a year in the two term of his Presidency the gathered houses of the Congress, the Cabinet, and the Justices of the High Court of the US (James, 2004). The checks and balances in Canada are very opposite from those in the US, it can be debated that within Canada that the Prime Minister has additional authority than the US President.
Canada’s executive and legislative branch draw from each other, the viceroy hardly uses their powers without the consent of the Prime Minister. This only occurs from situations brought on by constitutional crisis. To ensure the firmness of government, the Governor must always select for his Prime Minister a member who has the biggest group of followers in the Canadian Common House. The Prime Minister must resign or order the General to call for an emergency election or be forced out by the governor general if a big number of the house vote against the government on serious matters of the country.
The Prime Minister of a marginalized government is in a much dangerous situation than any United States president, which his presidency term is secured by the law. Often times of cohabitation are also there in the US known as divided government. Happens when different group than the White house directs congress. The President has incomplete control over the members of the House and must regularly make deals for there support. This leads to a stalemate that greatly slows down the law-making process (Charlton, 1998).
It is known that the lack of individual identity which characterizes the resulting efficacy of the combined policy activity of the individuals participating in, and influencing the progression of, the US separation-of-powers system in contrast to the personal identity that characterizes the resulting efficacy of the aggregate policy activity of individuals participating in, and influencing the progression of, the Canadian fusion-of-powers system that truly makes this distinction meaningful.
An example (putting federalism aside, arguendo) would be the one political actor in Canada responsible for motivating national defense policy decisions for Canada, the Minister of National Defense, contrasted with three(the Secretary of Defense, and the two chairs of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services) sometimes adverse political actors responsible for the direction of national defense policy Centralization of power in Canada has some benefits and legal responsibility when matched with the United State system.
A good line of authority/power showing to whom the government is accountable for any particular duty Unlike the U. S. (James, 2004). There is also the issue of political parties whereby the Canadian House of Commons has seats for four political parties while US has only two political parties in Congress. Both Canada and the US use first post system to elect their representatives. This type of a system can sometimes exaggerate regional interests and disparities, e. g. Dixiecrats and Quebec of the southern. The meltdown of progressive Conservation party and the rise Quebecois party changed the political field in Canada.
At the past only two parties dominated federal politics like the US, these parties were the Progressive Conservatives and the liberals, the Liberal held power for most of the 20th century until they were known as Canada’s natural governing party. Different from the US, Canadian third parties have always been able to get Members of parliament elected into the National Assembly since 1921, at times succeeding one of the two main parties as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition or forming casual coalition governments (Paul, 1992), In my opinion there are great differences regarding the way political cultures in Canada and the US.
This is clearly shown on how the different political institutions in both countries are being managed and the structure through which these institutions are developed. Therefore, it would be appropriate for one to say that the Canadian political culture is not and has never been Americanized even though there are some aspects of similarity in other government structures References Charlton, Barker (1998). Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues Edition 5. ITP Nelson, Michigan Collins, Richard. (1991). Culture, communication and national identity: The case of Canadian television.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press. James Bickerton, Alain Gagnon (2004). Canadian politics. Broadview Press, New York John C. Pierce, Nicholas P,(2000). Political culture and public policy in Canada and the United States: only a border apart? Edwin Mellen Press, Michigan Paul Attallah (1992), Richard Collins and the Debate on Culture and Polity, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 17, No 2 Nelson Wiseman (2001) Pathways to Canadian Political Culture consensus, Retrieved on 14th March 2009 from www. ubcpress. ca/books/pdf/chapters/2007/insearchofcanadianpoliticalculture. pdf