Presidents And Prime Ministers

[Nihil Obstat]

If the Canadian Prime Minister is supported by a majority in the House of Commons, he or she is almost quite literally an autocrat until the next election. House MPs will *always always always* stick to the party line. They know that they have no future in the party if they don't, and the whips must be crazy intimidating.
Add that to the fact that residual powers go to the feds rather than provinces, and you've got a very powerful head of government.

In theory the Senate is a check on the House of Commons, but the PM can appoint Senators more or less on a whim, so they're really just a waste of everybody's time.

In theory the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) could intervene in extreme circumstances, but in practice I believe this to be impossible.


Basically, the PM of a majority government has all but limitless power.

[poetryofimage]

Considering Plato thought up totalitarian rule by the elites, I don't see how the philospher-king would make things any better.

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1269646668' post='2080961']
Hmmmm. I actually have a book title you might be interested in about propaganda. I guess propaganda is a factor...but I don't see how having the people vote directly is going to solve the fact that the election process is, to quote a song by The Roots, a "world of politics and mascara."

In my opinion, a philosopher-politician, someone who truly asks the right questions, has no chance to succeed in our modern system. I actually think that it's easier to be a philosopher-king in a monarchical system than it is to be a philosopher-politician in our modern system.
[/quote]

[poetryofimage]

You need to step back for a moment and compare the historical President to the modern President. Historically, advisors had to be confirmed by the Senate. Now, Bush and Obama have taken to appointing Czars that are accountable to no one. Historically, Presidents were the final veto on bad laws. Now the executive talks of wanting a line item veto which would enable it to rewrite laws. The modern presidency is an enormous power-grab that hardly resembles the institution of the 1700s.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='26 March 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1269660250' post='2081093']
The point is an effective separation of powers and a system that counteracts the tendencies of concentrated power. The benevolent, paternal, philosopher-king is basically a myth but even were is true, a good master is still a master. But this is off-topic. I wonder if the presidency is superfluous and the current nature of our "executive branch" is inferior to some more democratic alternative. I'm not trying to be so radical here as to debate the fundamental idea of the government. This isn't supposed to be an anarchy thread. I just wonder why we need a president and if it is really worth it. Let's say that the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the rest of it stays, but let us then presume that the executive branch is disordered because of the powers of the presidency and that these powers ought to be limited and/or possibly turned over to a new thing; perhaps an executive congress.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1269660461' post='2081096']
"Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul. I haven't read this book yet, but I know Ellul from some of his other writings. He's an interesting thinker.
[/quote]
Nice. I know of Ellul from secondary sources, particular his views on technology and all that jazz. Also, I'm quite sure that book is on my amazon wish list. haha.


[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/banana_rawk.gif[/img]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='27 March 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1269666588' post='2081150']
If the Canadian Prime Minister is supported by a majority in the House of Commons, he or she is almost quite literally an autocrat until the next election. House MPs will *always always always* stick to the party line. They know that they have no future in the party if they don't, and the whips must be crazy intimidating.
Add that to the fact that residual powers go to the feds rather than provinces, and you've got a very powerful head of government.

In theory the Senate is a check on the House of Commons, but the PM can appoint Senators more or less on a whim, so they're really just a waste of everybody's time.

In theory the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) could intervene in extreme circumstances, but in practice I believe this to be impossible.


Basically, the PM of a majority government has all but limitless power.
[/quote]
Thanks Nihil!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='poetryofimage' date='27 March 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1269673276' post='2081188']
You need to step back for a moment and compare the historical President to the modern President. Historically, advisors had to be confirmed by the Senate. Now, Bush and Obama have taken to appointing Czars that are accountable to no one. Historically, Presidents were the final veto on bad laws. Now the executive talks of wanting a line item veto which would enable it to rewrite laws. The modern presidency is an enormous power-grab that hardly resembles the institution of the 1700s.
[/quote]
Interesting. Please elaborate if you are so inclined.