Quote:
Originally posted by pritchke:
Generally this is the way it works, however the PM can put anyone he wants in a cabinet position. Recently our PM appointed someone from the Senate who was not elected. When they do this type of thing they do get heat from other opposition MPs and voters so it is not a good idea to do this to often. In reality a PM as alot more power than a President. The Governor General who represents the queen signs all the laws but has no real power. She is appointed by the PM and I have never known a GG to oppose a PM ever. I mean she could say I am not going to sign this document so it can't become law but they never do although theoretically I guess they can. Observing both systems both have there advantages and disadvantages and it doesn't matter what system you have if corrupt officials are elected.
|
Pritchke, are Senators in Canada not elected? They are in Australia and the USA. I find that hard to believe if so. Appointing a Senator/Lord/Upper house member to a Cabinet position is not that unusual in Westminster systems. Normally the representatives/lower houses have the cabinet positions because they're the power brokers trying to get in line to be PM, getting appeased by a cabinet position.
The GG cannot refuse to sign a law anymore than the Queen of England can't. There'd be a constitutional crisis if they did that. (As there was in Australia when the Governor General used his constitutional power to sack the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam)
Secondly a British/Australian Prime Minister has far less power than a US president, so I'd guess the Canadian PM does too. Namely it's that their cabinet and party can fire the PM at any time by mounting a leadership challenge, so there's more accountability to the party and the people the PM is directly relating to every day.
I guess it's helpful in these conversations to be specific about which country we're talking about, because though the terms are the same, the roles may differ. A Senator in the USA has far, far more power than a Senator in Australia for example. I'd think that the French Prime Minister has less power than a British Prime Minister too.... while the French President has more power than the British Monarch (both heads of state) but less than the American president.... am I wrong?
When I'm talking about a PM putting "anyone" into cabinet, the member needs to come from parliament. Upper or lower house. Parliament contains the government. Theoretically the government could consist of people from any of the parties, as long as they are in parliament. Britain had a war cabinet with members of various parties I believe. Australia when governed by Coalitions have had cabinet quotas for each party.
The American president by contrast can hire ANYONE to serve under them, and I found out today, if they picked a Congressman, the congressman would have to resign from congress, because they cannot be in cabinet and congress (part of the checks and balances issue) otherwise they be part of the legislative and executive bodies of the US sytem.
I'm beginning to like the US system the more I have it explained to me, but I'd like to see how things work over the next two years.
[ 11-11-2006, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]