P. M Democratic Dictator
To What Extent is the P.M. a “Democratic Dictator”?
In 1867 Canada’s government was established as a parliamentary democracy. It was declared that those in government are to follow the Bill of Rights and run Canada for the people. Recently, there has been much debate on whether or not the Prime Minister could be considered a “Democratic Dictator”. Democracy “is a foremost issue” and the people of Canada are arguing that one person may hold too much power. After exploring the possibilities, I do not believe the Prime Minister can be considered a Democratic Dictator, as he/she must be elected, have an opposition, and every law proposed is voted on in the House of Commons. However, in opposition to this statement, the P.M. holds …show more content…
the power to prorogue parliament when he/she pleases and is able to appoint whom ever he wants in federal government. Therefore creating the possible argument that Canada is under a democratic dictatorship.
Firstly, the Prime Minister can’t be considered a Democratic Dictator because the people must elect him/her.
Canadians vote on who is to lead the country and therefore are responsible for choosing their own leader. The P.M. also is forced to partake in re-election process every four years; allowing Canadians to exercise their right to create a different outcome. In addition to being elected, the P.M. also faces an official opposition as well as other seated parties to challenge his/her political views and power. For example, if the official opposition forms a coalition with the other opposing parties when in a minority government, it is very difficult for the governing party to pass a bill. This creates an opportunity for all MPs to contribute to the final decision. As well as being elected and having to face an opposition, another reason the Prime Minister can’t be considered a Democratic Dictator is because the governing party and all other seated opposition parties must vote on every proposed law in the House of Commons. Those seated in the House of Commons hold the power to deny or progress a bill based on the majority choice. Before the bill is declared law it also must be approved by the Senate and Governor General. There is an extensive process to making a law official, the Prime Minister does not have sole power to dictate
law.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister could be considered a Democratic Dictator because he/she holds the power to prorogue parliament for his/her own gain. Prorogation is the discontinuation of a legislative body without dissolving it. It allows the P.M. the ability to start the leglislative process again without fully addressing current issues in the present form. This gives him/her power to change any unfavourable outcomes of current issues. Finally, the P.M. may be labeled a Democratic Dictator because he/she has the ability to appoint whom ever he/she wants in federal government. This insures his power within all branches of government. For example, he/she is able to appoint supporters of his party into the senate committee and other areas such as the judicial system, giving his/her party an advantage in a variety of situations.
Due to current events, democracy “is a foremost issue” and there has been much debate on whether or not the Prime Minister can be considered a “Democratic Dictator”. The P.M. supports the title of a Democratic Dictator because he/she has the power to prorogue parliament when he/she wishes and has the authority to appoint whom ever he/she pleases in federal government. Despite this, after doing my own research, I have concluded that the Prime Minister does not hold enough power to be considered a Democratic Dictator because the P.M. must be elected, have an opposition, and every proposed bill is voted on in the House of Commons.
In 1867 Canada’s government was established as a parliamentary democracy. It was declared that those in government are to follow the Bill of Rights and run Canada for the people. Recently, there has been much debate on whether or not the Prime Minister could be considered a “Democratic Dictator”. Democracy “is a foremost issue” and the people of Canada are arguing that one person may hold too much power. After exploring the possibilities, I do not believe the Prime Minister can be considered a Democratic Dictator, as he/she must be elected, have an opposition, and every law proposed is voted on in the House of Commons. However, in opposition to this statement, the P.M. holds …show more content…
the power to prorogue parliament when he/she pleases and is able to appoint whom ever he wants in federal government. Therefore creating the possible argument that Canada is under a democratic dictatorship.
Firstly, the Prime Minister can’t be considered a Democratic Dictator because the people must elect him/her.
Canadians vote on who is to lead the country and therefore are responsible for choosing their own leader. The P.M. also is forced to partake in re-election process every four years; allowing Canadians to exercise their right to create a different outcome. In addition to being elected, the P.M. also faces an official opposition as well as other seated parties to challenge his/her political views and power. For example, if the official opposition forms a coalition with the other opposing parties when in a minority government, it is very difficult for the governing party to pass a bill. This creates an opportunity for all MPs to contribute to the final decision. As well as being elected and having to face an opposition, another reason the Prime Minister can’t be considered a Democratic Dictator is because the governing party and all other seated opposition parties must vote on every proposed law in the House of Commons. Those seated in the House of Commons hold the power to deny or progress a bill based on the majority choice. Before the bill is declared law it also must be approved by the Senate and Governor General. There is an extensive process to making a law official, the Prime Minister does not have sole power to dictate
law.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister could be considered a Democratic Dictator because he/she holds the power to prorogue parliament for his/her own gain. Prorogation is the discontinuation of a legislative body without dissolving it. It allows the P.M. the ability to start the leglislative process again without fully addressing current issues in the present form. This gives him/her power to change any unfavourable outcomes of current issues. Finally, the P.M. may be labeled a Democratic Dictator because he/she has the ability to appoint whom ever he/she wants in federal government. This insures his power within all branches of government. For example, he/she is able to appoint supporters of his party into the senate committee and other areas such as the judicial system, giving his/her party an advantage in a variety of situations.
Due to current events, democracy “is a foremost issue” and there has been much debate on whether or not the Prime Minister can be considered a “Democratic Dictator”. The P.M. supports the title of a Democratic Dictator because he/she has the power to prorogue parliament when he/she wishes and has the authority to appoint whom ever he/she pleases in federal government. Despite this, after doing my own research, I have concluded that the Prime Minister does not hold enough power to be considered a Democratic Dictator because the P.M. must be elected, have an opposition, and every proposed bill is voted on in the House of Commons.