From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:13:58 GMT

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)

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)

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?

Germany: I think the comparison is a bit superficial. The German Lander are
       pretty loosely bound to the federal government. You might compare it
       just as easily to the US system: the idea of "State's (Lander) Rights"
       You could make the case that the upper/lower houses of German 
       government are like the Congress and Senate

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

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.
>
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).

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.

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.
>
>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. What I like
about the US system is not its actual implementation, but that distrust
and contempt for government is built into it. 
>
>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. 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. 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.
>
>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 still a crapshoot.  And I prefer the option of early termination...

An option which doesn't exist in a majority government.

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.
>
>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.) 


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada