Politicians, Juries and Agendas

[Kirkhill]

'I have no agenda, I'm not trying to get anything accomplished, so everyone that's here from Congress you should feel right at home'

Michelle Wolf - Joke at Whitehouse Correspondents' Dinner 2018

Therein lies the problem. I don't want my representatives (MPs, MLAs or Congressmen) to have agendas.  Just like I don't want my jurors to have agendas. I want them to be impartial adjudicators.  They do good work when they fairly judge the executive's choices.

Now the executive..... that is another matter.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That's kind of funny, Chris. Personally, I would have it in the reverse: I elect my MP, MLA or congressmen/senators in the US, to be the legislative branch primarily. They adopt the laws and so I want to know what they are planning to do or what their outlook on politics is (left/right/centre leaning) if I elect them, and I would call that their agenda.

On the other hand, the executive, in my mind should not have an agenda: they are the ones there to enact the legislation fairly, equally and without bias for all citizens regardless of political leaning. So to me it is the executive branch that must be impartial.

But I could be wrong.  :dunno:   

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Executive has to have an agenda. If not, they would just sit back and wait for Senate/ Congress to give them something to do. The Executive points the way forward for the country (their agenda) Taxes, trade, foreign relations, etc. Senate/ Congress then decides to faciltate that agenda or not, by making the changes required to meet or defeat the agenda.

Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?

 

[Kirkhill]

Recceguy isn't wrong OGBD.

As you well know our system of governance evolved from the King and his Privy Council being constrained, successively, by the Church, by the Lords and by the Commoners.  Laws are merely the terms of the contracts agreed over time.  The constraints were entirely physical: the ability to put supporters in the streets.

Our system of governance is predicated on the Executive (the King in Council) being given a free hand and a limited budget for a limited duration so as to act in the interest of the Kingdom.  At the same time the King in Council is constrained so that he can't do too much damage for too long. 

The Commons and the Lords (Senate) are not capable of acting in a timely fashion - they are debating societies.  They are well capable of acting after the fact but not before it.

As for the practice of legislating: the making of laws; setting out the terms of the contract - any citizen, through their right to petition the King, has the right to suggest new contract terms, new laws, and have them debated by Parliament.  Parliament then gets to decide if the new terms are warranted.  The Executive and the citizenry, then are required to abide by the new terms of the contract - until Parliament decides to change its mind: something that is entirely within its purview.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Perhaps I didn't express myself correctly - but we seem to be in closer agreement than the words may lead one to believe.

First of all, lets start with the Monarch: I don't get to chose him/her at all. He/she is there as a matter of mere existence and I have no power over it - other than voting for MP/MPP from a party that would want to turn us into a republic. As a result, i expect the monarch to be (1) the Monarch of ALL his/her subject equally and (2) a totally impartial adjudicator of all within his/her purview.

Second, the important part of the "contract" imposing rule of law on the monarch, at least in Westminster democracies, is the obligation for the monarch to pick the "council" from within the ranks of the legislators, whom I elect. As we all know, in practice, the above means that the "council" is selected from the ranks of the party with the most MP/MPP elected - most of the time. If this was not so, the "Monarch in council" could have all the agenda in the world" and ask for laws to enact that agenda until they are blue in the face and it would do nothing, for two reasons: (1) only members of Parliament can introduce bills in Parliament and (2) because the "executive" would not have been subject to election, the elected legislators would have no time for their agenda in any way (unlike the US system where both the executive and the legislative branch are elected).

Therefore, since I get to elect only the MP/MPP and the executive is drawn from their ranks and then they enact the laws/agenda that the parties aiding in the election of MP/MPP's only present to us - that is the reason I want to know various candidates for MP/MPP's agenda only before I vote. 

 

[beirnini]

Canada's government is a Westminster parliamentary system meaning the executive is formed from members of the legislature. It gives largely symbolic credence to governance by 'King-in-Council' through a Governor General who does not have any significant power or authority, much less an ability to form, implement or direct a political agenda. Political agendas are in theory supposed to be reflected in and promoted by our representatives, and thus acted upon if those representatives are elected to form a parliamentary majority and an executive.

They are not typically "adjudicators" (except in executive oversight functions), nor empty vassals or subordinates for the executive to order around, but explicitly representatives of the interests of the people. In every instance of democratic governance they absolutely should have an agenda - that being the agenda of who they represent.

If Canada were a presidential or semi-presidential system like the US or France then arguably yes, an elected executive could have a unique agenda different from parliamentary representatives. But extremes in such an agenda would in theory be kept in check largely by the constitutional powers of the legislative and judicial branches. Canada, like other Westminster democracies, relies on the unlimited ability of legislatures to reform the executive through votes of no confidence along with a large professional bureaucracy for that checking function.

Michelle Wolf's joke is biting because America's parliamentary representatives have abdicated their checking function entirely by adopting absolutely no agenda save for tax cuts for the rich and the unquestioning support of Trump.

 

[Kirkhill]

I accept both the arguments of OGBD and Beirnini. 

But....

The system in Westminster evolved around the King-In-Council, with checks being established to constrain the King until Robert Walpole turned George I of Hanover into his Sock-Puppet in 1721.  This, in my opinion, obviated many of the controls built up over the centuries, allowing the Prime Minister a freer hand in the name of democracy.

50 years later the Americans, victimized in their view by the Parliamentary system, but recognizing the value of personalizing the conflict in the form of George III, split from Parliament while blaming George.

This was an ongoing tendency for the next two hundred years in Britain as well.

Our responsible government evolved from the King-In-Council appointed Governor-General and appointment of local Executive Councils and the election of Legislative Assemblies to advise and restrain the G-G.  I suggest that that structure continued until 1947 with the appointment of the first Canadian G-G despite the battles between G-Gs acting as Kings and Canadian PMs lusting after the powers of Walpole.

We have institutions who exist in name only.  Power is managed elsewhere.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

We have institutions who exist in name only.  Power is managed elsewhere.

If by that you mean either (or both) very rich Canadian families pulling the strings from behind a curtain OR the civil service, I agree. Unfortunately I have neither knowledge of their agenda, nor any power to affect it through elections.

Perhaps it's time for a little revolution. Personally, I would start with most of the proposals presented by Brent Rathgeber (an ex MP) in his book Irresponsible government and go from there.

P.S.: If you have not read that book, go read it. It's an eye opener for anyone not familiar with Ottawa or Westminster Parliamentary form of  government.