Political Parties in Canada

Political Parties in Canada

Article Review

Through party discipline, the governing political party is in a position of mobilizing the members of parliament to support policies that benefit the public, while the relaxation of party discipline is prone to abuse by specific interest groups.

The author argues that Canadian politics is a team affair. It is anchored on the concept of mutual trust, close cooperation by all members of a certain political party, and confidence that each member would play his or her role effectively. Individual members of the House of Commons voluntarily join a party of their choice and seek elective positions with that party of choice without cohesion. Moreover, there are no rules in the Canadian House of Commons Standing Orders or the House of Commons Acts that force members of a certain political party to vote in line with their party’s position, but members generally vote according to their party’s position and philosophy. Thus, in the spirit of good team players, each member of the House of Commons votes in line with the party’s position. Furthermore, there is an immense burden for all members of the governing party to vote in line with their party’s position to accomplish what needs to be done.

Political parties in Canada are guided by a certain history and political ideologies. Being a member of a concrete political party and seeking to be elected to the House of Commons using that party’s ticket implies that one accepts the leadership of that political power, its ideologies, its method of discipline, as well as its method of decision. Therefore, when it comes to voting on issues before parliament, the members vote in line with their party’s position. In this way, the discipline in a party dictates and contributes to good governance.

The public interest is better served by a political system that embraces party discipline. The public is better served by a political system that allows political parties to exercise their authority easily and readily. On the contrary, if each member and each party can be simultaneously allowed to take any stand, the public would be confused about who is accountable. Thus, by political parties embracing strict party discipline, they create an avenue that a responsible government can use to promote the general good. In a comprehensive logic, the author argues that party disciple fosters good governance, and the calls to relax party discipline as a way to champion individual rights are likely to be counterproductive.

Strengths of the Article

The article gives practical experience on how the political parties in Canada operate. The author clearly articulates that party discipline works best in countries with responsible and accountable governments. The article is also comprehensive, as it gives two perspectives on the party discipline debate. For instance, the author argues that those who call for the relaxation of party discipline based on the premise that strict party discipline denies an individual member of parliament the right to express their opinion overlook the aspect of responsibility. Moreover, all members of the House of Commons should exercise their rights with responsibility, and they should ultimately be accountable to their constituents.

The article is well-structured. The text is brief with well-developed paragraphs, which enhances the clarity of the topic under discussion. The article has sub-headings that highlight the main issue being discussed. Furthermore, the text has been written using simple language for easy comprehension.

Weaknesses of the Article

The article covers a narrow perspective of party discipline. The reason is that the author gives his account of the operations of political parties without empirical evidence on the effectiveness of political discipline in other jurisdictions while fostering good governance. The writer needs to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that party discipline has promoted good governance in Canada.

The article is subjective. The author wrote the research based on the perception of two individuals, a senator from the governing party and a member of the office of the governing party. The two persons were of the view that the government and the governing party were always responsible, while the opposition parties were always irresponsible. The author fails to provide empirical evidence to support his argument. Furthermore, not all the actions of opposition parties can be perceived as irresponsible. In the real sense, opposition parties act as a watchdog to ensure the government serves the public interest.

My Opinion

Canada has a responsible government that always strives to be accountable to its people. To ensure that the state authorities exercise their mandate, it needs the support of the governing political party. The ruling political party must have the capacity to marshall its members in the House of Commons to rally behind government bills. Rallying behind government bills can only be achieved through party discipline. In my opinion, I strongly believe that party discipline helps a responsible government in achieving good governance, and the elimination of party discipline is prone to abuse and can be counterproductive.

Ordering Process

Push the button “Order Now”

Make the payment. No additional charges will be applied

Detailed verification for grammatical errors and uniqueness

Provide us with a detailed description of your assignment

Our expert starts to write your paper

Download your custom paper from your personal account

Push the button “Order Now”

Provide us with a detailed description of your assignment

Make the payment. No additional charges will be applied

Our expert starts to write your paper

Detailed verification for grammatical errors and uniqueness

Download your custom paper from your personal account

Order now

Additionally, party discipline compels members of the House of Commons to be accountable to both their party and constituents. The reason is that a member of parliament is just a representative of his constituents, and therefore, he or she should represent the interest of the electorates rather than their interest. Therefore, it is responsible for a member to adhere to the party’s position during voting in the House of Commons.

Argumentative Essay

In the recent past, the political parties in Canada are under intense attack, as the attempts to diminish party discipline gather momentum. Canadian society has been broken down into small interest groups whose concerns are mainly parochial. Interest groups no longer champion issues of national good but rather issues of their specific needs regardless of the implication of such a move to the general good.[footnoteRef:4] Political parties are among the few institutions that have been left to control interest groups. Parties perform a significant integrating role, and they are among the few institutions that champion the general good as opposed to a specific good. Party discipline is not an impediment to good governance in Canada. Strict party discipline has fostered good governance in three fundamental ways. First, party discipline ensures that the interests of the constituents are captured in national policies. Second, strict party discipline liberates the members of the House of Commons from the pressure and influence of specific interest groups. Third, disciplined political parties make sure that the government and its top leadership are held accountable for the outcome of certain policies.

Party discipline nurtures good governance through better representation of the interests of the electorate in the House of Commons. For one to fully comprehend why party discipline is central to representative governance, the concept of responsible representation needs to be understood. The Canadian parliamentarians are the representatives of the Canadian electorates, and they are elected through a democratic process. The members of the House of Commons are expected to act in the best interest of their constituents. For one to be elected into the House of Commons, he or she must belong to a certain political party, and each political party is anchored on a certain ideology that its leaders must advance. The ideologies of the political parties inform the voting pattern of the electorate. Therefore, it is the responsibility of a member of the House of Commons to represent the interests of its constituents by adhering to the party’s position when voting on an issue in the parliament. Political parties permit better representations of the interests of the electorates in national policies. Furthermore, party discipline helps strengthen the capacity of political parties to advance policies of national interests as opposed to policies that favor individual concerns. 

Party discipline promotes better representation of the electorates’ interests in two main ways. First, a strict party discipline demands that members vote as a block on issues in the parliament, as it is the majority of voters that constituents a decisive consideration. Disciplined political parties are significant in the representation of the public’s interest since the majority of the electorates in democratic states, such as Canada, make their political choices based on the party’s ideology rather than appeal to an individual party candidate. In essence, people vote for a certain political party, as they believe that this political force can represent their interests. Party discipline guarantees that an individual member of parliament would not contravene the party’s position during voting. Thus, it promotes representative governance in the House of Commons.

Second, through party discipline, a member of the House of Commons is forced to abide by the party position after the caucus. Since the essence of the party caucus is to reconcile divergent views within a party about a certain policy issue as well as assure the members that the proposed policy accommodates the interests of their electorates, the government party caucus stands a better chance of exerting the greatest influence in the content of the law.[footnoteRef:7] Furthermore, at the party caucus, liberal members from the party position or discipline are free to express themselves as well as the concerns of their constituents without pressure from the general public and the media before the party adopts a common stand.

Party discipline demands the government be accountable to the electorates. The existence of party discipline is associated with the tenets of a responsible state, as rigid party discipline is one of the tools employed by governments to ensure that they are accountable for their policy outcome. The principle of accountable government in the parliamentary system of government demands that the state authorities should secure the confidence as well as the support of the majority of its parliamentarians. The legitimacy of any government is derived from the principle of being an accountable government, which, in turn, comes from embracing strict party discipline.

Party discipline in Canada allows the government to secure a majority of the support in the House of Commons to retain power as well as execute the mandate it was voted to accomplish. Therefore, it is important to have a clear distinction between the opposition and government party to allow the electorate to see who is answerable for the outcome of certain policies as well as whether the present government has performed to the satisfaction of the voters to be voted in the subsequent election.

A strict party discipline ultimately promotes good governance. It is because the members of parliament are guided by the national interests when making a decision rather than narrow concerns. The electorates are the ultimate decision-makers on issues of governance. In this way, if the electorates do not want a leader, a policy or government would choose for them how to vote effectively. The capacity to vote effectively by the members of the Canadian parliament is a product of firm party discipline. Moreover, party discipline enhances good governance, as it acts as a link between the executive and the legislative powers. Thus, the party caucus offers a platform that a cabinet of ministers uses to persuade members of the House of Commons to support the legislation.

Good governance entails the existence of a representative and responsible form of government. The primary function of an election process is to give a mandate to the party that won to govern as well as have a reasonable time to implement their campaign pledges. A responsible government is sustained best in a disciplined political party’s environment.[footnoteRef:8] Furthermore, party discipline ensures that there is a clear distinction between the ruling party and the opposition. A strict party discipline also ensures that both the party in power and the opposition are in a position of fulfilling their role in the House of Commons; the governing party is charged with the responsibility of formulating national policies, while the opposition is mandated to express grievances as well as disclose flaws in the proposed laws. Thus, party discipline is one of the instruments that a government must employ to successfully enact and implement national policies. Ownership of responsibility in the House of Commons for policy critique or policy outcomes ensures accountability of the state to the electorate. Therefore, party discipline in the Canadian political system is not a hindrance to good governance.

The Party caucus plays an important role in ensuring that the political entities reach a common stand in their quest to push issues of national interest. The Party caucus provides members with an opportunity to debate issues so that all members agree to reach a consensus.[footnoteRef:9] The governing party caucus also offers an opportunity to a cabinet minister with legislation to lobby members to support the bills. Therefore, the ruling party caucus acts as a link between the executive and the House of Commons. The cooperation of the two arms of government plays a significant role in ensuring that good governance is realized. The caucus also offers a platform where the party leadership justifies their proposed policies as well as nurtures the morals and philosophy of their ideas.

Good governance is only sustained by having effective institutions. Parties play an integral role in the achievement of good governance. The author argues that since political parties are one of the few institutions that have remained sober in articulating national interests, party discipline is paramount for them to be effective.[footnoteRef:10] Furthermore, party discipline ensures that political entities are not limited by special interest groups whose agenda is narrow and selfish.

Party discipline is critical for parties to vote as a block. It is because individual party members act as representatives and vote accordingly on issues in the parliament. Furthermore, party discipline does not impede regional representation, rather it is through disciplined political parties, that representation is achieved. Moreover, the allowance of liberal voting in parliament does not result in greater representation. To ensure effective representation in the Canadian parliamentary system, electoral systems should be reformed to guarantee more effective representation. Hence, one of the tenets of good governance is that governance should be represented through embracing a system of disciplined political parties.

Finally, party discipline prevents diverse interest groups from influencing individual members of the House of Commons from championing policy change and other bills that are mainly concentrated on the narrow-minded interest groups. As was highlighted earlier, one of the core functions of political parties is to incorporate divergent electorates’ interests within national interests to formulate policies that promote national welfare. Therefore, allowing free voting in parliament might create a situation where individual members of parliament start advocating the interests of different groups rather than the concerns of their constituents. Strict party discipline protects members of parliament from the influence of pressure groups.

In the past, the influence of pressure groups has been high on controversial topics, such as gay unions, abortion, and other issues of moral values. The members of parliament should be independent of radical groups such as those that curse abortion and gay marriage. Disciplined parties protect their members from pressure and influence expressed by diverse interests group. Hence, strict party discipline does not impede good governance.

On the contrary party, discipline has been blamed for all the ills that bedevil political institutions in Canada. Defenders of reduced political party discipline argue that reduced party discipline is the cure for the socio-economic ills that affect Canada. Experts argue that political parties in Canada are more controlling and less tolerant of dissent when compared to other democracies of the modern world. Most debates in the Canadian House of Commons are scripted by the party leadership. Members vote as their party leaders direct nearly 100% of the time, and few private members' bills are passed during the first reading. Subscribers to the belief that members of the House of Commons should be at liberty to speak their minds as well as voice the concerns of their electorates think that a strict party discipline in Canadian parliament impedes good governance, thus ensuring that the government is accountable to its constituents. 

Proponents of the elimination of strict party discipline refer to the United States Parliamentary system to justify that the relaxation of party discipline nurtures a more accountable and responsible state. Nevertheless, permitting more liberal voting in parliament weakens the distinction that separates the governing party from the opposition as well as creates confusion among the electorates, as the members of the House of Commons are supposed to be accountable to them. Amid the confusion, there is a possibility of some individuals, especially lobbyists and special interest groups, influencing or gaining control of a certain policy decision without being held the account for the policy outcome.

Supporters of reforms to weaken strict party discipline argue that the Canadian Parliamentary system should follow the US example of the congressional form to permit a more liberal vote for a more effective and representative government. Unfortunately, the congressional form of governance embraced by the US Congress creates a strong state power where no single institution has absolute power.[footnoteRef:13] Thus, when power is widely spread, it creates a major problem when it comes to the ownership of responsibility for certain outcomes. Hence, the allowance of liberal voters in the parliamentary system is prone to create problems when it comes to the implementation as well as the sustenance of the tenets of responsible government by weakening the distinction between the governing party and opposition as well as creating confusion among the voters.

The critics of strict political discipline argue that if the individual members are at liberty to vote in line with the best interest of their constituents, the outcome would result in an effective regional representation. The argument has lacked merit in at least two ways. First, by exercising strict party discipline, the individual members of parliament are better equipped to fulfill the diverse interests of their constituents. Representation is not only limited to the responsiveness of political ideologies and policies but the interests of a specific constituency. In practice, representation is better achieved by securing the “specific outcomes for individuals or groups in their constituency.”[footnoteRef:14] For instance, a member of the House of Commons may petition the government to undertake a certain project on behalf of his or her constituents primarily to use that as a tool to seek reelection. Research indicates that a member of parliament who is complying with party discipline is likely to achieve more for their constituents as opposed to an indisciplined person. Adhering to party discipline enables a member to avoid confrontation with the party leadership. Furthermore, obeying informal rules is a prerequisite to the provision of services to constituents.

The argument that members of parliament should be allowed to exercise their right of voting in any way they choose overlooks the aspect of responsibility and accountability. The members of the House of Commons are the representatives of the electorates, and therefore, when voting in parliament, they should vote along party lines as expressed by the electorates during the election. Under a system of accountable and responsible government, the electorates, through an election process, have the ultimate authority to make decisions. Therefore, the responsibility of a member of parliament is to reaffirm the position of their constituents during voting by sticking to his or her party's position on an issue before parliament.

The individuals who support the concept of relaxation of political party discipline are narrow-minded, and they are only keen on championing the individual rights of members of parliament while escaping the other side of the equation, namely the responsibility. From the perspective of the electorate, members’ rights must come with responsibility, or the electorates would risk losing significant power to the politicians, to relax party discipline, one should surrender the authority and power to the members of parliament at the expense of the voters as well as empower the members by reducing the power of the voters. 

The attack on party discipline is important to lobbyists and special interest groups. The reason is that party discipline fosters general good, which is in contradiction to the narrow interests of pressure groups. To ensure that power goes to electorates, the responsible government requires accountable parties. Moreover, for a nation to have responsible parties, party discipline is critical.

Moreover, there are many avenues how which a member of parliament can be responsive to the interests of his or her constituents without diverting from party discipline. Moreover, party discipline does not impede different types of representation. Hence, the argument that the elimination of party discipline promotes better regional representation does not take into consideration the diverse ways a member can represent the interest of his or her constituents without compromising party discipline.

The second argument for not permitting free votes in the Canadian Parliament is that there is no permission for members of parliament that are elected on a certain party ticket to oppose a party’s policy. Thus, allowance of liberal votes would imply that individual members of parliament would not have an incentive or legitimacy to champion the interest of their constituents. On many occasions, voters elect leaders based on their party affiliation.

Furthermore, voters are not accorded an opportunity to hold individual members of the House of Commons answerable to the electorates, as the election does not offer opportunities for the public to assess the performance of an individual member of the House of Commons. Hence, the allowance of liberal voters in the House of Commons would not promote the representation of the interests. Therefore, it is not the party discipline that needs to reform, it is the Canadian electoral system that needs a review to allow greater accountability of the members of the House of Commons to their constituents. 

In conclusion, party discipline does not impede good governance. Firstly, party discipline guarantees the majority in the House of Commons to sustain power as well as execute its mandate. Furthermore, party discipline assists in the identification of ownership of responsibility for national policy outcomes. Hence, party discipline makes the governing party accountable to the public. Secondly, party discipline ensures that the interests of the electorates are well represented in parliament by making sure that no individual member of the House of Commons deviates from the party position on issues that require to be voted on. Members of parliament are elected to act as a representative of their electorates through a specific party. Hence, if liberal votes are permitted in parliament, individual members of parliament would no longer hold the mandate of acting as representatives of their constituents. Therefore, weakening party discipline would not lead to better representation. However, other factors should be reviewed such as amending electoral systems to ensure greater accountability of the members of the House of Commons to their electorates. Finally, party discipline ensures that the behavior of the members of the House of Commons is not influenced by narrow individual or pressure group interests at the expense of national interest. Therefore, strict party discipline is not a hindrance to good governance in Canada.