Comparative Politics

Introduction to Parliamentary Systems

Parliamentary vs. Presidential
Congressional Systems

Case of Britain [model of Parliamentary
System]

Case of Canada
     
     - Origin of "Nation" of Canada
        One Nation?  Two Nations??
         Or Multiple Nations ? ? ?

     - Political System - Hybrid of British
        Parliamentary and U.S. Federalism

     - Policy Problems of Canada -
        - tensions of bilingualism
        - Quebec separatism
        - Anger of Western Provinces

1.   Supremacy of Parliament:

     Separation of powers by default and
struggle for supremacy between Crown and
Parliament during Stuart dynasty
(1609-1688).

     The British "constitution" versus the
constitution of American political thought.

     Unwritten "checks" on Parliament:  
     - public opinion
     - tradition of the rule of law
     - payback at election time.

     End of supremacy? ---> Treaties entered
into by Britain to create and support
European Union commit it to accept the
judicial review of the European Court of
Justice which can override laws of
Parliament.

2.   Human and Civil Rights under the U.S.,
Canadian and British constitutional orders.

     British constitution can be amended" by
a majority vote of Parliament alone. 
Magna Charta, the Bill of Right of 1689,
and ordinary civil rights and liberties can
be suspended or repealed fully by a vote of
Parliament alone.  No limits on Bills of
Attainder, Ex Post Facto laws, Habeas
Corpus, - No equivalent of First
Amendment with respect to press/speech,
No "exclusionary rule"
  
     Fundamental Texts:  
     The Magna Charta of 1215
     The Petition of Right of 1628
     Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and
     The Bill of Right of 1689
     European Convention for the Protection
     of Human Rights andFundamental
     Freedoms of 1951.

U.S. Constitutional Protections:

Pre-Bill of Rights
     
Article I Sec. 9    (Restrictions on national
government's powers)
    -    no bills of attainder
    -    no ex post facto laws
    -    no suspension of right of writ of
habeas corpus (except in emergencies)

Article I Sec. 10   -    same restrictions
binding on state governments nor may
states pass laws impairing obligation of
contracts

Article III Sec 2   -    right of jury trial in
criminal cases guaranteed 

Article IV Sec. 2   -    citizens of each state
entitled to "privileges and immunities of
the citizens of every other state"
Article VI          -    no "religious test"
required of federal office-holders

Bill of Rights - Further restrictions on
powers of national government:  Rights of
freedom of religion (negatively freedom
from conformity to a national religious
establish and the positive right of free
exercise of one's preferred belief) and of
assembly, petition for redress of grievances,
and freedom of speech and the press
guaranteed.  Due process, and protections
against unwarranted search and seizure,
self-incrimination, double jeopardy and
provision for public trial and right of
witnesses and counsel also provided. 
Amendment IX declared that the
enumeration of certain rights in the text of
the constitution did not preclude other
rights traditionally enjoyed by the people
and Amendment X held that powers not
forbidden to the states or delegated to the
national government were reserved to the
people and the states.

Impact of 14th Amendment and Judiciary

Canadian Protections:

     In 1982 the Canadian Parliament passed
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is
considered to form the first 32 articles of
the Canadian Constitution.  These articles
cannot be revised except through an
amendment procedure involving both
national and provincial levels of
government and requiring the consent of no
less than two thirds of the provinces 
compromising no less than 50% of the
people. 

     The Charter is explicit in declaring its
protections superior to the ordinary statute
law of parliament and binding on all levels
of government.  The Canadian Supreme
Court has ruled that this means that no
ordinary acts of the Parliament or its 
cabinet carry any presumption of
constitutionality and therefore parties
claiming that such acts violate the Charter
can appeal to the Supreme Court
to declare on the constitutionality of such
acts without having to claim any actual case
or controversy.

     Unlike the U.S. constitution there is no
right to bear arms nor are the rights of
speech absolute.  The Supreme Court has
held that laws enforcing prior restraint
against hate speech are valid and has
upheld laws forbidding the importation
and/or dissemination of anti-Semitic
propaganda and anti-Catholic tracts.  
Religious broadcasters have had little
success in getting Canadian licenses
with the result that most Christian 
broadcasting stations just south of the 49th
parallel are owned by Christian
organizations based in Canada.

     There is no provision in the Canadian
Charter, like the U.S. 9th Amendment, that
gives a textual foothold for non-textual
common-law or natural-law jurisprudence.  

     Do Parliamentary Systems Produce
more responsible, effective governments or
administrations than Separation of powers
systems?

Arguments in Favor of Fusion of Powers:

1.   Without "deadlock" Government Could
Solve Deficit Problem

2.   Unitary Governments would have a
more consistent economic policy

3.   United government is a precondition for
a sound and successful foreign policy.

Arguments against . . 

1.   Parliamentary systems are best suited to
nations with that democratic tradition but
might not be effectively translated into
practice by nations with a tradition of
separation of powers

2.   The assumptions and values against the
concentration or power in the hands of a
centralized government are as true today as
in 1789.

Deficit Comparisons Across Nations in 1984

Nation                           Deficit as Percentage
                                    of GNP

Italy......................................12.4
Ireland....................................12.3
Belgium....................................10.3
Greece......................................9.8
Denmark.....................................6.0
Netherlands.................................5.9
Spain.......................................5.7
Canada......................................5.3
Sweden......................................3.5
UNITED STATES...............................3.1
United Kingdom..............................2.8
Japan.......................................2.3
Germany.....................................1.4
Norway.....................................-2.4

Source: Vito Tanzi, "The Deficit Experience in
Industrial Countries," in Phillip Cagan, ed., The
Economy in Deficit (Washington, D.C.: American
Enterprise Institute, 1985), pp. 94-95.
 Argument regarding consistent economic
policy - no true of coaltion governments
and not true across changes of government.

Argument regarding coherent foreign.

French foreign policy debacles in Indochina
(1950-1954)  and Algeria (1954-1961) both
occurred parliamentary governments of the
Third Republic.

Britain and France's foreign policy disaster
in the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis occurred
under parliamentary governments in both
nations.

Whether parliamentary systems balance
their budgets better than Presidential-
Congressional Systems check on deficit
data from several nations [see chart]

Know for Quiz for May  30, 2002

1.    Know the "levels of analysis" in
     discussing the politics of a nation or of
     some nations.

2.   Know the concept of a "political"
     system. I.e. recognize what things are
     "inputs" "internal processes" and
     "outputs"

3.   Understand what parts of American
     political culture are "exceptional" as
     opposed to those parts which are held in
     common with other democracies

4.   Know main differences between
     Presidential and Parliamentary system

5.   Know what parts of Canadian System
     come from Britain and which were
     modeled on the United States