From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: ?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:04:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.081358.21091@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
|In article <1992Sep2.195120.1393@bcars6a8.bnr.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

|>"British-like" == "undemocratic"?  I think I'll skip flaming this one.
|>Other than to point out that more democratic countries follow the British
|>model than the American.  Italy, Germany, Australia, India etc. are closer
|>to the British model than the American.  The American model has the dubious
|>honour of being followed by more less democratic countries...  like Mexico
|>or farther south.  Like their friends in El Salvador.

|British=undemocratic? How about paranoid secrecy laws? Freedom of information
|Acts basically don't exist. Pretty closed system of governemnt. The
|attitudes towards free speech/expression are pretty weird be Canadian or
|US standards (look at their libel laws)

I should have been more specific about detail, and not gone off into hyperspace
somewhere.  I gotta open my poly sci books again ;-)

I should point out too, that I don't find the American system completely
bad.  There are some features I'd like here.  Fixed terms isn't one of them
tho.

|However, I believe Britain is leading the world in its changes to government
|services and efficiency (ie mandate to serve taxpayer's demands for
|quality in service, choice)

So it does have its advantages.  Especially things like NHS.  Which, though
financially strapped, is better than down south where a significant percentage
of the population can't avail themselves of health services at all, or only
in a limited fashion.

|Italy: an almost ungovernable country. Political scandals galore. Is Italy
|       the kind of government you want to hold up as an example of how nice
|       the British model is?

Could you imagine, however, what it would be like with fixed terms?  More
like El Salvador or Guatemala.

|Germany: [arguable either way]

Granted.

|Australia: hasn't their government mutated a bit? Still British in style though

Mutated somewhat.  They may go more republican over the next few years.
Their voting system would be nice to have.

|India: an embarrasing example of British style government! Why do you bother
|      citing India? A country with a lot of promise 40 years ago has
|      been strangled by government and beauracracy. India has been dwarfed
|      economically by many other states with a more "Presidential" style.

Actually, no.  India would be totally ungovernable with a more republican style
government with fixed terms.  The country is too heterogenous for that.  The
very fact that it's held together this long is pretty amazing.

|Any system can look ideal on paper, yet turn out in practice to be be
|abusive and oppressive. Costa Rica or Ecuador (stable, democratic 
|South/Central American countries) don't fit into your El Salvador example
|so easily, do they? Maybe you can tell me how France fits in (Presidential,
|by the way).

I was going to lump it in with El Salvador, but I figgered I'd be better
off avoiding *those* flames ;-)

|So the "on-paper" side (parliamentary/presidential) actually has no bearing
|on whether a government is tyrannical or not. The constitutional layout
|of a country is pretty meaningless if the courts, police, army, electoral
|process have been usurped.

Yes.

There are some things that *do* bear: presidential veto, executive clemency,
executive order.  Those are three things that we could *really* do without,
and in certain circumstances can lead a country along to tyranny.  Ie:
the American's forfeiture laws.  The presidential model places far more
power in one person's hands than the parliamentary model.

|The main difference I can see is: parliamentary governments evolved from
|monarchies who ceded more and more power, whereas presidential systems
|evolve in republics, where people had to fight off tyranny.

That's a good distinction.  And the latter isn't necessarily better than
the former.  "Better" is usually an implementation detail ;-)

|>Of course it would still arise.  The government in power merely has to adjust
|>their timetables a bit to coincide with the elections.  Or, simply know that
|>every 4th November is when to break out the goodies - "Read my lips - no
|>new taxes!".  US presidents do it all the time.
| 
|a weak president can easily be dragged back by the Congress.

Only by impeachment (then you're stuck with an Agnew or Quayle for 3 years - which
would be worse), or by veto override - which needs more than a majority.

|What I like
|about the US system is not its actual implementation, but that distrust
|and contempt for government is built into it. 

The majority of the theory behind it is good, some of the implementation sucks,
and the "distrust and contempt" is often counterproductive.  I'd prefer
*not* to have it always adversarial.  That being said, I'd love to see
some way of "de-partying" party politics in *this* country.

|>Furthermore, when you get a shmuck, you're stuck with him until the end of the
|>term.  Unless you manage to impeach him.  Then you get stuck with an
|>unelected president until the end of the term.  Is that any better?

|Where's the comfort in sitting and taking it for 5 years as we do here?
|In Canada, the Brian Mulroneys and Bob Raes can run amok for 5 years with
|only the courts to answer to.

And the GG or LG.  Who can terminate even a majority government.  Though,
it would have to take pretty substantial reasoning for them to be listened
to.  It *has* happened elsewhere, but not in Canada.

|I find it interesting to see how much
|control Americans have over their government: in US TV or print, you ALWAYS
|see references to initiatives, referendums, votes etc.

That's one feature that I think we could cautiously adopt.

|People routinely
|call their congressmen to ask them to vote a certain way. If *I* call
|my MP or MLA, *BIG DEAL*!!! He's probably a backbencher with no clout.
|My representation becomes worthless, as my MP or MLA has to vote with
|party lines, which are controlled by some clique of cabinet ministers.

On the other hand, the MP/MPP/MLA can certainly use this information in
policy determination - because they still have to face you, the voter,
next time around.  And quite possibly less than 4 years apart.  They
do care.  Because they know if their voters are sufficiently against
something, it will hurt their chances next time.  I think the primary
difference between our and their systems in this regard is simply that
Canadians haven't gotten into the habit of doing this.

|>The British system has the advantage of being able to abort ineffective
|>(read unable to govern) governments quickly.  The advantage of being able
|>to call elections when you're at the peak of popularity isn't necessarily
|>an advantage - as Peterson found out.   A lot can change in the 90 day runup
|>to an election - as Bush is finding out now.

|Don't kid yourself. An "ineffective government" in Canada/Britain is
|one who's whip has lost its sting to its grunts and backbenchers.
|The only way non-confidence really happens is if a coalition splits.

It's happened to majorities.  Even though it's relatively rarely used,
it's a lot better than being completely impossible with fixed succession
rules (Quayle?  Just say no)

|>It's still a crapshoot.  And I prefer the option of early termination...
|
|An option which doesn't exist in a majority government.

But at least it's available.  It's never available down south.

|Don't get me wrong, I don't think the US system is that great, it just
|has a number of good features we *should* adapt to our system.

Ditto.  Fixed terms ain't one of them though.

|>And besides, with a 15% or thereabouts approval rating of Mulroney, what're
|>you worried about?

|Worried about changing the name of the PM, but getting the same crap
|heaved at us. (The Liberals started our debt/deficit competitiveness 
|problems, The PCs doubled our debts. NDP? hahaha. Sure.) 

Much as I don't want Manning, maybe just maybe the shock to the system
will get them to smarten up.  Though, what makes you think that the
Americans are immune to this problem?  Why do you think Perot did
so well?