Section 5: Canada and Britain: Parliamentary Democracies and Consociational Societies Ordinarily most U.S. texts of comparative politics based on country-studies begin with Great Britain. Although the United States traces its political heritage and roots back to Great Britain this does not mean that the political systems of the United States and Britain are relatively "similar" to each other. Actually, among all the nation-states that are known as "Liberal Democracies" the United States and Great Britain represent the two opposing extremes of the Presidential-Congressional System and the Parliamentary System. The United States has both separation of powers and federalism while Britain has instead a unitary government and also a unitary state. "Separation of powers" means that the legislature, executive, and judiciary are created by means which make each branch of government politically independent of the other branches. It also means that each branch has certain powers that only it can exercise. The three branches have the ability and often the motive to check the others in their joint exercise of power. For the national government to be able to work there must be co- ordination of these powers but this only occurs when there is a widespread consensus among all three branches, and the nation as a whole, in favor of the common course of action. By contrast, since 1690 Britain has maintained the ideal of the supremacy of Parliament - national elections determine which political party has the majority in the House of Commons. The leader of the majority party is "invited" by the British monarch to "form a government," that is, to select members of the Cabinet who will head the various Ministries of the executive branch of government (corresponding in function to the executive Departments of the U.S. government.) In "accepting" this "invitation" the majority party leader becomes the Prime Minister of "Her Majesty's Government." In the British system there is a "dual executive" - the Queen (or King) is the "head of state," which is a purely ceremonial and symbolic function. The Prime Minister, however, is the "head of government" who has the actual power to run things. By contrast the U.S. Presidency is a "unitary executive" with the President being both the head of state and the head of "government," or, to use the American expression, the "head of the Administration." Those nation-states that have parliamentary systems but whose government's formal organization is that of a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy usually will have an elected President to serve as the ceremonial head of state while a Prime Minister or Chancellor is considered to be the head of government. Therefore although such systems have a nominal "President" it is important to remember that this does not necessarily mean that these government have a Presidential-Congressional type system. Another difference between Presidential-Congressional and Parliamentary systems is in duration of office: an elected U.S. President will serve all four years of his term in office, barring sudden death or impeachment, even if he becomes highly unpopular or politically ineffective early in his administration. By contrast if the parliamentary government is ever defeated on one of its motions by majority vote in the Parliament this is considered to be a "vote of no confidence." In such an event the Prime Minister and Cabinet "offer" their resignations to the British monarch who then schedules new national elections to the House of Commons. If the government is never defeated in any vote within Parliament it is still expected to call for national elections at least once every four (or in exceptional cases, five) years. The Prime Minister and Cabinet would only resign if their party lost in the regular national election. A. Presidential and Parliamentary Systems: Summary of Fundamental Differences and Likenesses: (from, Arendt Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries) British U.S. Parliamentary Presidential Model Model 1. Executive Power Executive power is in Executive power is cabinet formed of members concentrated in of Parliament belonging to President elected majority party. by Electoral College. 2. Unitary Government vs. Separation of Powers? Cabinet and Parliament are President and Congress controlled by same majority are chosen separately party: no separation of and enjoy independent powers powers. 3. Unicameral vs. Bicameral legislature? All real legislative power Legislative power is rests in popularly-elected divided between two house; unelected House has popularly elected mainly symbolic powers houses 4. -Two Party System: Two major parties dominate----- NOTE: This happens to be true in both the British and American cases. In other parliamentary systems there may be several parties, none of which hold a majority of votes in parliament. In such cases it is necessary to build coalition governments. 5. Party Differences Parties reflect real dif- Parties do not have ferences in ideology and major differences in policy ideology or policy 6. Plurality Elections Executive authority is based Executive authority on a majority derived from derived from Electoral plurality votes in single- College majority vote; member districts. Electors chosen on "winner-take-all" basis 7. Federalism vs. Unitary State Parliament has all power Powers divided bet- while local gov'ts have ween state and national powers. 8. Parliamentary Supremacy vs. Constitutional Supremacy Parliament is not bound by President and Congress written constitution nor do are limited in their courts have the right to powers by Constitution challenge laws of Parliament and by courts' decrees 9. Exclusive Representation and Single Mandate Parliament alone has an President and Congress electoral mandate have separate mandates B. Major Differences in Operation: The British model embodies the ideal of MAJORITARIAN RULE while the American Presidential system embodies the ideal of GOVERNMENT BY CONSENSUS. The difference is that in the consensus system minorities (i.e., not just racial or ethnic minority groups, but any interest groups or well- organized constituencies able and willing to act cohesively) can exercise effective "veto" powers over the will of the majority. e.g. Recall the defeat of the Idaho Citizens' Alliance anti-homosexual Proposition No. 1 in the November 1994 elections and the fate of a similar initiative in Colorado which was passed but then ruled unconstitutional by a Federal District Court. Although a majority of citizens favored those initiatives it is not enough to have a majority - there must be an overwhelming consensus, usually exceeding 75 percent of the citizenry. Polls in May 1996 showed a majority of Idahoans supported Initiation No. 1, intended to limit property taxes, but by November 1996 those groups opposing this measure were able to defeat it in the election---in other words passive majority support is no match for the political resources of activist minority groups. As a consequence of this principle of "majoritarian rule" parliamentary systems seem best suited to culturally homogeneous societies having few minorities while the presidential system seems best suited for highly diverse countries in which every group is, at least potentially, a minority. In "true" presidential systems the Presidents' authority is not granted by, or contingent upon the confidence of, the legislature. Besides the United States, only France, Finland and the Russian Federation have true presidential systems. In most Latin American systems the President is popularly-elected but the legislatures resemble the British model more and many of the President's formal powers depend on the approval of the legislature. Dominance of the Executive in the U.S. system: Separation of powers does not entail equality of power and prestige among the three branches, except, perhaps, in their ability to veto each others' actions. Although the President has veto power over legislative bills this can be overridden by a two-thirds' vote in both Houses of Congress. Congress, however, has absolute veto powers over Presidential appointments, treaties and executive orders. "Legislative vetoes" used to be embodied in bills but were declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1986. The Supreme Court rulings can "veto" congressional legislation or executive orders when these are the subject of real cases and controversies appealed to that Court. Sequential referral of legislative bills to two or more committees within each House of the Congress gives effective veto power over any piece of legislation to any group that can muster enough influence over key committees to delay passage of a bill or else to have it unfavorably reported to the House as a whole. The British view this system of multiple checks and balances as appalling "chaos and confusion." C. Advantages/Disadvantages of Each System Parliamentary systems seem to allow voters clear-cut choices between parties and programs. Once "governments" change, entire national policies change as well. Responsibility lies clearly in the hands of one party. There is no "gridlock" between the executive and the legislature nor is there gridlock within the legislature due to stalling tactics of minority party members or instances of majority party members "crossing-the-aisle." Some have asserted that good public policy is the true purpose of government. "Good" public policy is described as, 1) that which is responsive to the public's wishes, 2) is based on good information, 3) timely, 4) coherent, 5) effective, and, 6) responsible. Those who hold the above claim our Presidential- Congressional system has created a `constitution against government' which forces policies to be more consensual than coherent and more responsive (to the wants of various groups and regions) than responsible in serving the public interest. Defenders of the Presidential-Congressional system believe that the exercise of governmental power should be checked since an overly powerful government would have equal potential to create great evil as well as great good. They also tend to have a less optimistic assessment of human nature than do those who favor the parliamentary system. Those students who are interested in reviewing the arguments for abolishing the separation of powers in the U.S. political system in favor of British parliamentary- style constitutional arrangement may wish to read Michael L. Mezey's Congress, the President, and Public Policy, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989). "The argument of this book is that the Presidency as currently conceived is impossible no matter who is there and that given the current constitution against government, no matter how much one tinkers with the relative balance of congressional and presidential power, good public policy is unachievable." (p. 197) Those who are interested in the countervailing argument in favor of the preservation of the separation of powers may wish to read James Q. Wilson's article "Does the Separation of Powers Still Work?," Public Interest, 86, pp. 36-52. D. Separation of Powers and Federalism: Students of American government are apt to confuse separation of powers with federalism. These two features of government are logically distinct. Separation of powers ordinarily refers to separation (or division and sharing) of powers within one level of government. Federalism refers to a nation-state system in which there are at least two levels of government each of which has certain powers that the other does not possess and each of which has a legal existence independent of the political will of the other level of government. Because the states have certain "Reserved Powers" not possessed by the national government (e.g. local police and firefighting authority; the power to license businesses and professional practices; the power to regulate marriages, estates, and inheritance laws) and because the national government is forbidden by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution from changing the corporate character of any state without its consent the United States has a federalist system. The relationship of each state to its constituent counties, parishes and municipalities, by contrast, is one in which the local governments have only those powers and corporate identities given to them by their respective state governments. Each state is, in effect, a unitary state, as is Great Britain. Because there is no logical connection between separation of powers and federalism (or between having a unitary government and having a unitary state) a number of different combinations of these alternative forms is possible: Separation of Powers plus Federalism, e.g. United States Separation of Powers plus Unitary State e.g. State of Idaho, other U.S. states Unitary Government plus Federalism e.g. Canada, Australia, India Unitary Government plus Unitary State e.g. Great Britain, and Canadian Provinces E. Canada as a Cross-Hybrid between the U.S. and British Political Systems: Canada is the logical stepping-stone in the transition from the United States' Presidential-Congressional system to Britain's Parliamentary system. Canada combines these three elements: 1) a British-style parliamentary system, 2) federalism and judicial review, which counter the powers of the unitary government in the Parliament, and 3) a consociational society due to her unique history: This last feature requires some explanation for must U.S. students . . . As a result of the "Seven Years' War" between France and Britain in the 1760s, known to students of U.S. history as the "French and Indian War," France lost her North American colony of Quebec to Britain. In order to keep the French inhabitants of Quebec, who were now British subjects, content and docile the British government decided to retain the French system of laws and to recognize the Roman Catholic Church as one of the two officially- recognized religions in British North America (the other being the Anglican Church, also known as the "Church of England.") This created the basis of an officially- sanctioned bi-national and bicultural policy in British North America. This measure, among others by the British government, led to great opposition among the English colonists in the thirteen colonies that had formed British North America before the conclusion of the French and Indian War, and was cited in their Declaration of Independence as one of the causes of their separating themselves from Great Britain: He [=King George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation for . . . abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province [=Quebec], establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies. After losing her thirteen original American colonies Britain tried to retain its remaining North American colonies and also, if possible, to make up for her losses by further territorial expansion to the West. As the United States engaged in its westward expansion Britain engaged in a race with the Americans to establish its competing claims westward across North America as much as possible. Fort Hall located to the north of Pocatello, was originally a British Hudson's Bay Company fort built to counter the U.S. claims to the Oregon Territory established by the Lewis and Clark expedition. Two other consequences of the American War of Independence contributed to Canada's distinctive political culture. First, many Americans who had suffered political persecution for remaining loyal to Britain, relocated from the thirteen colonies to Canada. These Loyalists, who harbored deep grievances against the United States, became the backbone of the growing English- speaking community in Canada. The other consequence of the loss of the thirteen colonies was that Britain revised its colonial policy. Another reason why the American colonies had been so inclined to rebel was because the original colonists included many religious and political dissenters, as well as restive adventurers seeking quick fortunes. Britain now screened prospective immigrants to Canada to allow only loyal and docile settlers in. Whereas in the westward expansion of the United States pioneers went forward, musket in hand, establishing settlements with vigilante justice before any courts of law were in place, in Canada's westward expansion it was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who first went forward, pacifying the Indian tribes, driving out American whiskey-traders and smugglers, and establishing a system of forts, settlements, and roads. By the time settlers were allowed to proceed westward they did not need to carry muskets with them because there was little "wild west" left in the Canadian frontier. Whereas the U.S. experience produced a political culture with strong anti-authoritarian themes and a belief in "rugged individualism" the political culture in Canada is much less anti-authoritarian and less individualistic. By 1867 a number of different colonies, including Quebec, Ontario, the Canadian maritime colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the west coast colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia (which merged into one colony prior to Confederation) agreed to form a single government as part of the conditions set by the British government for conferring "responsible government", or "Home Rule," to its North American colonies. But just as the former American colonies were reluctant to surrender all of their states' rights under the Constitution of 1787 so too were the various Canadian colonies reluctant to merge themselves into a unitary state. Then, too, there was the question of Quebec, in which the French language and system of laws remained in effect. There was no question of forcing the people of Quebec into a union in which they would lose their special rights and privileges. But if Quebec were admitted into the proposed Canadian union on a special footing, why shouldn't British Columbia, Ontario, and the Maritime colonies enjoy at least the same equal status and privileges? Thus when the leaders of the various colonial governments met aboard a yacht off the coast of New Brunswick (in order to avoid giving any of the colonies pride of place over the others as having been the sponsoring, founding state) they were moved to agree - - - aided by liberal draughts of Scotch and Canadian whiskey - - - to a Confederation modeled after the U.S. federalist system. By 1867 each colony had already adopted a political system modeled on that of Great Britain. Each had a dual executive with a Prime Minister as head of government and a Lieutenant-Governor as the representative of the British monarch, and a unitary parliamentary government within a unitary colonial state. Upon Confederation the new national government similarly adopted a parliamentary system while preserving a separate level of government in the form of provincial parliamentary governments.. When the British Parliament was informed about the terms of the Canadian colonies' proposed confederation it passed the British North America Act of 1867 which recognized the new Canadian Confederation and granted it powers of self-government in all affairs except control over foreign affairs and military policy. Differences between the U.S. and Canadian Federal Systems The Canadians learned from the Civil War in the United States that one source of disagreement and tension between the national and state governments had been the U.S. constitution's failure to specify what the "Reserved Powers" of the states actually were. Therefore not only did the Canadian constitution enumerate the delegated powers of the national government but it also separately enumerated what specific powers the provincial governments were to exercise. However, just as the U.S. Constitution contains the "necessary and proper clause" of Article I, Section 8 (also known as the "elastic clause" since its interpretation has been stretched to cover a number of implied powers) that allows the national government to pre- empt state powers through claims of implied powers and the application of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, so too the Canadian constitution has its own version of a supremacy clause and provision for implied powers that allows the Canadian national government to pre-empt the powers of the provincial governments in certain cases. Also, unlike the United States, when provinces were formed out of portions of the "Northwest Territories" all of the public lands within those new states became entirely the property of the new provinces formed rather than remaining federal lands in part or whole. Such continued federal ownership ver the public lands today continues to be a source of tension between the U.S. national government and the western states much of whose lands are actually under federal ownership and control.. From "Home Rule" to Full Independence In a cost-cutting measure brought about in large part by the Great Depression, the British Parliament in 1931 passed the Statute of Westminster granting "Dominion" status to its more prosperous and self-sufficient colonies. Parliament was telling Canada, Australia and New Zealand in effect, that "you're on your own" as far as raising revenues to run their governments went, and also made them responsible for conducting their own foreign relations and self-defense. In effect Canada had already been an independent nation from the late 1890s but now was being formally recognized as another kingdom under the "reign" of the British monarch but formally separated from the rule of the British Parliament. Strange to say this means that Queen Elizabeth II of England is really also Queen Elizabeth I of Canada! The one oddity about the newly independent Canadian nation was that its "constitution" consisted of an Act of the British Parliament and therefore could only be amended by a foreign parliament that did not represent the Canadian people. In reality the parliamentary supremacy in Canada's system meant that the ordinary legislation by the Canadian Parliament in fact did amend the Canadian constitution. Still the formal-legal reality that the Canadian constitution was the creation of a foreign government continued to irritate Canadian nationalist feelings. This non-national, non-sovereign, and undemocratic character of the British North America Act became something of a scandal in the twentieth century. Canadian reformists called for the "repatriation" of the Canadian constitution. Led by Pierre Trudeau, the French Canadian head of Canada's Liberal Party and its Prime Minister since 1967, Canada lobbied for an amendment to the British North America Act known as the Canadian Constitution Act of April 17, 1982 which gave the Canadian government the right to amend its own constitution as it saw fit. Debate about how the constitution should be amended evolved into a debate about the democratic legitimacy of the constitution itself. Even though it had been "repatriated" this document had originally been drafted by British members of parliament rather than Canadians. Finally a conference of provincial and federal political leaders agreed upon not only the means for amending the constitution but also the draft of a new proposed constitution in the 1987 Meech Lake Accord. To be ratified the Constitution had to be ratified by the Legislative Assemblies (=provincial parliaments) of at least seven of the ten Provinces comprising no less than 50 percent of Canada's population by the year 1992. The new Constitution Act of 1982 had two unusual features: It created a federal supreme court with powers of judicial review and so ended parliamentary supremacy. The Constitution contained a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" superior to any other federal or provincial law. The new Supreme Court has become a source of great contention in Canadian politics: issues that previously had to be argued, negotiated and hammered out in Parliament through some sort of compromise and give-and-take were now being referred to the Supreme Court. Whereas the outcome of parliamentary debate and decision had to appease many different factions of Canadian society, the rulings of a Supreme Court tend instead to be "zero-sum" outcomes that intensity division and strife in society. The second unusual feature of this proposed constitution that almost doomed its ratification was that it contained no explicit mention of any special status for Quebec within the Canadian Confederation. While its "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" did contain explicit guarantees for the preservative of the French language and culture it did not do so within an official bilingual and bicultural policy. Rather the Charter granted the same protections to all other linguistic and cultural minority groups within Canada. Rather than seeing themselves as being "more equal" partners with English-speaking Canadians in a binational state, many French-speaking Canadians saw themselves as being forced to share official minority status with Algonkin and Cree Indians as well as with other non-English-speaking and non-French speaking groups which implied a diminished share of power relative to English- speaking Canada. F. Consociational Societies: Formula for Conciliation or Formula for Conflict? Among the most perplexing questions facing political scientists, especially in the post-Cold War period, are: "What is a 'nation'?", "What is meant by 'nationality?'", "When does a group have rights of nationality,?" and also "When do the national rights of a group require that it be granted political independence?" Nationality is often defined as involving some combination of i) a common history or experience as a community, ii) a common (supposed) ancestry, iii) a common language, iv) a common culture, and v) a common religion. Nonetheless a group could have all of these and still lack political independence. Therefore a nation-state is usually defined as having four essential elements: I) territory to govern, II) a population, III) self-government, and IV) the capacity to conduct its own foreign relations. For conditions II) and III) to prevail the "population" must recognize the legitimacy of the government which rules with the consent of the people. However there is nothing in condition II) that requires that the people be all of one nationality as defined earlier. Therefore when two or more distinct nationalities come together under one government to share power in a single a nation-state the result is a consociational society. The result is that two or more "nations" continue to exist as equal partners in a single nation-state. Depending on how diverse the population is and what degree of good-will and fair-play unites the component nationalities, consociational societies can range from being staid and stable (like Switzerland), or else are apt to tear themselves to pieces, as happened to the former nation-state of Yugoslavia. ============================================ FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 1. Given the definition of a "consociational society" is the United States today a consociational society? Why so, or why not? 2. If the United States is a consociational society, what are its component national groups? How alike or unlike are they in terms of language, history, and culture? 3. What are the political implications of this diversity, or lack of diversity, for the United States' internal politics and/or political stability? 4. Does the United States have any political arrangements that define any special status for component national groups? ================================================== The Canadian Confederation was a self-consciously consociational society in a way that the United States has never been. Quebec's inclusion in the Confederation required some acknowledgment of the special status of the French language and culture. By contrast U.S. legislative and constitutional guarantees for racial minorities and the various Indian and Eskimo tribes and villages were after- thoughts that came about long after the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. One result of this self-conscious binational policy was the Official Languages Act, which required that both English and French, as co-equal official languages, be used in all federal official documents and on all articles of commerce traded between the Provinces. All provincial school systems were required to teach French to 'Anglophone' students (i.e. those students whose mother tongue was English) while 'Francophone' French-speaking students were required to study English. Since English- speakers dominated nine of the ten Provinces and most of the economic elites, few English-speakers felt motivated to study French. By contrast, ambitious French Canadians who wished to advance themselves economically and socially felt highly-motivated to study and master English. Official Civil Service policies, however, gave preference to Canadians who were equally proficient in both languages. Thus the higher echelons of the Canadian civil service, foreign service officers corps and military officers corps contained disproportionate numbers of French Canadians. This led, in turn, to resentment among English-speakers who often suspected that the French-speakers did not share their own affection for the peculiarly British features of Canadian tradition, such as the British monarchy and British common law. English-speaking Canadian traditionalists and conservatives were outraged in 1967 when the new national flag of Canada dropped the British "Union Standard" design, in which the British Union Jack occupied the top-left quadrant in favor of a red Maple Leaf design having no distinctively British symbols. By contrast both Australia and New Zealand retained the Union Standard design in their own national flags. While Canadians of British ancestry witnessed this sentimental vestige of their own heritage being erased they could not help but notice that Quebec continued to use the royal standard of the French Bourbon dynasty as its official flag, that is to say, the standard which had been the national flag of France prior to the French Revolution. When Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau proposed renaming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the "National Police" and replacing their colorful red-coated uniforms with drab olive-green uniforms, one western leader, Premier W.A.C. Bennett of British Columbia, acidly remarked that Trudeau's apparent disdain for the Mounties' tradition proved that Trudeau intended to turn Canada into a "pinko, French- speaking republic!" The English-speaking Canadians' backlash was felt in several ways. Certain Western provinces having predominantly English-speakers, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, laxly enforced the policies requiring bilingual education. In order to pass High School examinations in French, students were required only to be able to count to ten in French and to master certain stock phrases, such as "Qu'avez-vous comme glace?" (="What flavors of ice cream do you serve?"). More important it led western politicians to avoid mentioning any special status for the French language or culture in the drafts of the proposed revisions of the constitution. These deliberate omissions and slights angered French-speaking Canadians which in turn led to a majority of Quebec's citizens voting into office a provincial government led by the Parti Quebecois, a French Canadian Party committed to leading Quebec out of the Canadian Confederation into full independence. In spite of the federal Official Languages Act that mandated the use of both French and English in all commercial documents, the separatist-dominated Quebec Legislative Assembly passed a law restricting the use of English in commercial advertising, legal documents, public signs, and place-names and requiring that all commercial negotiations be held in French whenever at least one Francophone was present in the negotiations. Delegations of businessmen from Germany and Japan seeking to establish branch offices in Montreal were astonished when they found that official delegations of the Quebec provincial government refused to conduct to conduct any negotiations in English even when the only common language available to both delegations was English.. When the federal government refused to take any measures against Quebec's defiance of federal law, the other Provinces proceeded to rescind their provincial laws requiring bilingual education and the use of French in legal and commercial documents. Most of the people and governments of the western provinces viewed the people and government of Quebec as spoiled beneficiaries of a Canadian welfare state funded largely by taxes exacted from the more economically prosperous and productive western provinces. Most almost wanted to see the created of a "Triple E" upper House of Parliament: One that was Equal in representation, Elected, and having Effective powers. The current Canadian Senate is composed of 104 Senators appointed (not popularly elected) by the Canadian national and provincial governments with Quebec and Ontario each receiving 25 seats apiece. Like the British House of Lords the Canadian Senate has only advisory powers. The proposal for the Triple-E Senate would make the Canadian Senate much more like its United States counter-part: an institution reflecting both popular sovereignty and more federalism in the operation of the national parliament. However this would also reduce Quebec's voice in the upper house from approximately one-fourth to about one-tenth. This would further diminish Quebec's sense of itself as being an "equal" partner with the rest of Canada, a message well understood and intended as such by the governments of the Western Provinces. By June 23, 1990 all provincial legislatures had voted on the ratification of the new constitution but Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Quebec had voted against ratification. Although the new constitution had secured enough votes to be ratified under the Meech Lake Accord in fact many Canadians had come to regard Quebec's ratification as essential for the success of the new constitution. This dithering is somewhat understandable. After all, if the federal government would not, or could not, take steps to prevent Quebec from ignoring the federal Official Languages Act, was there any hope that it would forcibly prevent Quebec from seceding, which would be the most probable outcome if the new constitution were promulgated in spite of Quebec's opposition to ratification? In fact this conflict did come to a head . . . In spite of the equivocation of the Canadian public and the federal government, Canada's Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that Quebec could not overrule the Official Languages Act by its own linguistic legislation. In the same year it also ruled that the new Canadian constitution had been legally ratified in spite of Quebec's refusal to ratify. The legitimacy of the new constitution was further strengthened when new provincial governments in Manitoba and Newfoundland decided to ratify the constitution. Early in 1995 the leader of the Parti Quebecois and Prime Minister of the Quebec government, Jacques Parizeau, announced that Quebec would hold a referendum on October 30, 1995, on whether or not to secede from Canada. Any secession from the rest of Canada carried out by Quebec would have the effect of splitting the remaining nine provinces of Canada into two separate geographic regions, with five Provinces in the region from Lake Erie to the Pacific, and four Provinces in the coastlands and islands between Maine and Greenland. The secession of Quebec would also raise the issue of sovereignty rights over the remaining Northwest Territories and over the sea- floor of Hudson's Bay. On October 30, 1995 the referendum question was defeated by a narrow 50.4% vote. An earlier referendum on secession in 1980 had been defeated by 60% and so even though anti-separatists celebrated there was still concern over the future of Canada. Shortly before this latest referendum, an angry English-speaking Canada announced through the government in Ottawa that Quebec had no right to unilaterally withdraw from the Canadian Confederation even in the event of a majority vote in favor of secession. The resolve behind this declaration was not put to the test but the referendum result no more endeared the Confederation to those Quebecois intent on independence any more than the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 convinced southerners to remain in the Union. Canada's Conundrum since October 30, 1995 On two occasions in June 1990 and October 1992 Canadians as a while had to decide whether Canada was a consociational society, that is, a nation-state resulting from an equal partnership of two founding peoples, namely the English and the French, each having distinct cultures-- or else merely a federation of ten provinces with no special status for Quebec as a province or for Francophones as citizens within Canada. On the former occasion the provincial governments failed to unanimously accept a special status for French Canada and on the latter occasion 54% of the voters nation-wide rejected "distinct society" status for Quebec in a nation-wide referendum. On two occasions a Parti Quebecois government in Quebec conducted provincial referenda on the question of Quebecois sovereignty: In 1980 about 60% of Quebec's voters rejected the idea of Quebecois sovereignty and only about 40% of Francophones in the province favored the idea. However following English-speaking Canada's two-time rejection of the notion of a consociational partnership with French Canada the second referendum in 1995 failed by less than 1% with around 60% of the Francophone voters indicating that they approved of the referendum. On October 30, 1995 Canada and Quebec had come to the brink of a crisis of their definition of the nation-state to which they belong. While it is possible that English-speaking and French- speaking Canadians may resolve their differences within the current Canadian confederation and constitution it is also possible that these differences might eventually destroy the current Canadian nation-state and constitution, possibly with much violence and civil disorder. This possibility of violence is present because both Canada and Quebec already have a long prior history of violence and civil disorder attending the national question. In recent history Quebecois separatist sentiment was the largest single source of political violence in Canada, accounting for 50 percent (= 166 incidents) of all domestic terrorism in Canada occurring from 1962 to 1980. In October 1970 the kidnaping of a British trade commissioner, later released, and the subsequent kidnaping and murder of a Quebec Labor Minister by the Quebec Liberation Front led the Canadian government to invoke the War Measures Act which suspended ordinary civil liberties and permitted police and military forces extraordinary powers to arrest suspects summarily and to conduct searches and seizures without warrant. Following the impressive electoral gains of the separatist Parti Quebecois in the early 1970s and its electoral victory within Quebec in 1976 most separatists opted to use democratic rather than violent means to achieve their goal of independence. Should democratic and legal processes fail to achieve their goal they still have the precedent of political violence to fall back upon. Most French-speaking Quebecois rejected the option of separatism in 1980 because the notion of a consociational partnership of the French Canadians with the English Canadians had historic foundations in the 1774 English recognition of the French systems of laws in Quebec, their recognition of the Roman Catholic Church as the official religion of French Canada, as well as the Official Languages Act of 1969. Biculturalism and bilingualism were official federal policies and promotion in the civil service, diplomatic and military officers corps depended in good part on bilingual competency of the candidate. However these were not explicit guarantees written into a constitution because, until 1982, Canada lacked a single written constitutional document but rather based its powers on several acts of the British parliament. With the repatriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982 Canadians sought to amend the document in order to address the needs not only of the French-speaking Canadians but also of the citizens of the Western provinces added since Confederation and also to address the needs of the native peoples of Canada.. Although the official equality of the French and English languages are guaranteed in the Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is no clause guaranteeing the consociational character of the Canadian nation-state. Although the Anglophone Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tried on two occasions to amend the constitution to designate a "distinct society" for French Canadians these proposed amendments were rejected by most English-speaking Canadians as giving French Canada "too much." Needless to say these proposals were also rejected by most French Canadians as giving French Canada "too little." French Canadian anger over English Canada's rejection of the "distinct society" clause set the stage for the latest referendum for Quebec sovereignty which narrowly failed. However neither French-speaking Canadians nor English-speaking Canadians (particularly those who live and work in Quebec) are under any illusion that the failure of the October 30, 1995 referendum has settled the nation- state issue for once and for all. On the contrary both the "sovereignists" (those favoring that Quebec secede from Canada) and the "federalists" believe that it is not a question of whether a future Quebecois government will try to secede but rather a question of "when" and "how?" Although the proponents of the referendum question had sought to assure English-speaking and native Canadian citizens of Quebec that their rights would be protected in an independent Quebec, the bitter concession speech of Parti Quebecois provincial premier Jacques Parizeau implicitly redefined Quebecois nationality along exclusivist ethnic and linguistic lines: Friends we have lost, but not by a lot. It was successful in one sense. Let's stop talking about the Francophones of Qu‚bec. Let's talk about us. Sixty percent of us have voted in favor. . . It's true we have been defeated, but basically by what? By money and the ethnic vote. This rhetoric of the sovereignists is hardly reassuring to non-Francophones in Quebec. It is exclusivist and insensitive to the claims of rights of others outside of its narrowly-defined community. Both the Anglophones and "ethnic vote" of the Ottawa valley, Montreal and its suburbs, and the eastern townships along the United States border, as well as the Cree Nation in the northern reaches of Quebec, have raised the question: If Quebec's Francophones have the right to secede from Canada based on their claim to have a distinct society and culture, don't the other non-Francophones have the same right to secede from Quebec based on their own respective cultures that are distinct from those of Francophone Quebec? The immediate precedent for this line of reasoning is the Serbian tactic of claiming the right of Serbian- populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to secede from those former Yugoslav Republics after they themselves had seceded from Yugoslavia/Serbia proper. The Anglophones of Quebec have in fact founded their own "Equality Party/Parti egalite" dedicated to ensuring a partition of Quebec favorable to their own interests and the creation of a "Federalist Quebec" that would remain part of the Canadian confederation separate from any independent Francophone Quebec nation-state. Such a partition of Quebec would retain Montreal and the richest farmlands and urban areas along the St. Lawrence Seaway for the Anglophone-dominated "Federalist Quebec" while leaving the more backward rural areas, forests, swamps and marshes to the "Separatist Quebec." In effect the Anglophones of Quebec seemed prepared to respond to the demands of the separatists by saying "Let them eat nationalism!" If They Want to Secede Isn't That Just Their Business? The secession of Quebec would not only affect the destinies and fortunes of those non-Francophones who happen to be citizens of Quebec presently: It also affects the definition of the rest of the Canadian nation-state: The Maritime Provinces would be cut off physically from Ontario and the Western provinces of Canada. The Francophones of New Brunswick, who call themselves "Arcadiens" and not "Quebecois" resent the claims of Francophone Quebecois to speak on behalf of all French Canadians and they fear that their own status and loyalty as Canadians would be questioned if Quebec seceded. The secession of Quebec also has implications for other liberal democracies, such as France, Spain, and Britain, who also have regional ethnicities with distinct cultures, some of which have already been agitating for autonomy or even independence. But even if the Federal government of Canada seeks to use legal and constitutional processes to forestall any unilateral and preemptive secession of Quebec this would not preclude a determined separatist government from declaring its independence and attempting to mobilize the military resources within Quebec to defend its claim of independence by force of arms. Only four days prior to the October 30, 1995 referendum Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob, a Member of the federal Parliament belonging to the Quebecois Bloc, had sent faxes to all Canadian military bases urging Francophone soldiers and officers to switch their loyalty from Canada to Quebec in the event of the referendum passing. Currently 28 percent of the 66,900 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were born in Quebec. Approximately one-quarter of the Canadian Armed Forces material and bases lie within Quebec, including the headquarters of the Canadian Army in Valcartier, the mobilization depot in Montreal, the Air Force base in Bagotville as well as the naval base in Quebec City. In short a unilateral secession or any attempt at partition of Quebec could lead to a civil war within Canada. Although this scenario may seem far-fetched the reality is that even now both federal politicians and Parti Quebecois leaders are beginning to draw up separate tallies of what each thinks Quebec's share of the national debt is, and even how many jets and tanks of the Canadian armed forces Quebec is entitled to. Even after the federal Supreme Court has ruled against the legality of a unilateral secession Parti Quebecois leaders are drawing up plans for a third referendum. South of the border the prospect of a secessionist Quebec is being taken quite seriously. In early March of 1998 the United States Air Force Special Forces Command School carried out a simulation at its operational headquarters in Hurlburt, Florida on how to contain or counter the probable threat to U.S. security posed by an outbreak of civil war or terrorism attending the possible secession of Quebec. Is such a conflict necessary or inevitable? In fact Francophone communities co-exist peacefully with non- Francophone communities in such consociational societies as Switzerland and Belgium without seeking separation or independence. It is the existence of a common agreement on the nature of the French nation-state among its people that has made France stable in the face of many constitutional and political challenges. By contrast the lack of a consensus among Algerians on the meaning of their Algerian nation-state has destroyed the attempted democratization of Algeria and reduced that country to civil war. Although Canada has an admirable history and tradition as a constitutional liberal democracy this will not save her society from experiencing a rebirth of separatist terrorism, civil unrest, and possible civil war if Canadians, both Francophone and non-Francophone, fail to reach and maintain an accord regarding their common identity as Canadians. At the time of this writing the civil discord north of the United States remained still a war of words. Unfortunately our own history has shown how divergent conceptions of the nature of the nation-state can lead to civil war. The tensions and instability of the consociational society to our north should also alert us to the potential perils of trying to redefine the nature of our own nation-state excessively in terms of divergent cultures and ethnicities rather than seeking of a common ground that unites us in spite of our cultural and ethnic diversity. COUNTRY SUMMARY OF CANADA Political Culture: Less deferential than that of Great Britain (see following) but not as strongly anti- authoritarian as that of the United States - strong participant and subject orientation. Executive: Prime Minister appointed by Royal Governor- General (Queen's/King's representative in Canada) from leader of party winning majority of seats in House of Commons. P.M. forms cabinet from members of his/her own party. "Government" falls by a vote of no-confidence or by its own resignation. Legislature: House of Commons comprised of Members of Parliament elected from 301 single-member districts across Canada. Has enumerated powers similar to those of House of Representatives in U.S. Upper house, the Senate, is composed of 104 Senators who are appointees of provincial and municipal governments and who have advisory powers but cannot block legislation of the lower house. The Western Provinces, who are underrepresented in this ceremonial body, argue for a "Triple-E" Senate: One who members are popularly-elected, equal in provinicial represenation, and having effective powers of government on a par with those of the House of Commons. Judiciary: Canadian Supreme Court has power of judicial review of Parliament's legislation and of executive actions. Electoral System: Single-member districts of approximately equal population. Political Parties: Progressive Conservatives (right) and Liberals (liberal-left) represent two main parties that have alternated in power at the national level. The New Democratic Party is a more far-left socialist party and has headed two provincial governments. The NDP was also the third-largest national political party until the Reform Party displaced it. The Reform Party is pro-free enterprise and anti-welfare state. Whereas the NDP tended to sympathize with the demands of Quebec separatists the Reform Party views Quebec as a drain on the national economy. The Social Credit party in western Canada, despite its name and its emphasis on government initiative in economic development, is widely regarded as pro-business and socially conservative. The Parti Quebecois is the separatist party that has twice led the government of Quebec Province. Interest Groups: Canadian business and labor groups are organized as lobbies and regulated in such the same way as comparable groups in the U.S. Special Features: Canada combines a unitary form of government (British parliamentary system) with federalism-- -two levels of government (national and provincial) exist each of which has powers that the other does not have. The division is very similar to that existing in the United States with two differences that give Canadian provinces more power than their U.S. counterparts--whereas the U.S. states have unspecified "reserved powers" (viz. Tenth Amendment) that can be whittled away by the national government's "implied powers" (Art. 1, Sec. 8, last clause) the Canadian provinces have their own separate list of "enumerated powers" within the Canadian constitution. The Provinces also are the primary owners of their respective public lands rather than the federal government. A special problem is that of "biculturalism"---because Quebec has repudiated the Official Languages Act by outlawing the use of English as a commercial language within Quebec the western provinces have repudiated their official use of French. Separatism in Quebec threatens the Canadian union and secession by Quebec might lead many English-speaking provinces to seek statehood with the U.S. COUNTRY SUMMARY OF GREAT BRITAIN Political Culture: High participant political culture but high subject competence. Britain has combined respect for tradition and hierarchical ascriptive (i.e., hereditary or conferred) authority with public belief in democracy, liberty and political participation. Executive: Head of State, hereditary monarch with limited royal prerogatives; Prime Minister is Head of Government and is ordinarily the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. If the majority party deposes its leader the next party leader it selects will also be the next Prime Minister. The Cabinet members are usually all members of the House of Commons of the majority party (but see LEGISLATURE below). The monarch technically "chooses" the Prime Minister and the ruling majority party in the House of Commons is referred to as "His/Her Majesty's Government." In the case of inconclusive election results or parties having pluralities but no majorities the King/Queen can select the Prime Minister on the basis of royal prerogative. Legislature: Bicameral system, with upper House of Lords reduced largely to a ceremonial and advisory capacity. Real effective governmental power in hands of House of Commons. Note: Members of the House of Lords can be selected to serve in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister, however, must be a member of the House of Commons. Judiciary: Judiciary has neither powers of judicial review nor political independence. Both a system of common law and judicial appeal exist but High Court's chief justice is a member of House of Lords, whose "Law Lords" function as the highest court of appeals. Electoral System: National elections for the House of Commons are held every four years or else earlier, if the Prime Minister chooses to call the elections earlier. If the majority party is defeated on a government motion or vote of no confidence the Prime Minister and Cabinet are expected to submit resignations to the King/Queen and national elections must be held. The party that wins a majority of seats in the election chooses its leader and cabinet who then present their credentials to the King/Queen. Members of House of Commons are elected by plurality votes from 659 single-member districts. The 675 Members of House of Lords are either the 118 hereditary peers or else those 557 who hold lifetime peerages (non-transferable to their heirs). The Archbishops of York and Canterbury and a limited number of ranking clerics of the Church of England are also "Lords Spirituals" in this body. Political Parties: Conservative Party and Labour Party have typically taken turns dominating what is in effect a two-party system. The Liberal Party, Social Democrats, Ulster Unionists and others play a very minor role. The runner-up party will have its own "shadow" cabinet and its leader is the "shadow" P.M. Interest Groups: Professional and business associations and labour unions do not lobby the government in the American manner but use the offer of their cooperation with government programs (or else non-compliance, "go-slows," to influence policy.