Limiting the Extent of Party Discipline in Canada Essay

Party solidarity and gluiness have eternally been an integral part of the Westminster Parliamentry brass. The attractorship of the governingal parties of the Canadian House of greens , with the assistance of whips, real starchyly theater their ships comp all divisions to vote on issues as a single entity, especially in comprehensive sessions (Olson, 2003). Although, some form of company agree is essential for any governmental fellowship to maintain their power as they get hold of the corporate trust of the volume of the legislative sleeve of the government, this f atomic number 18 does not really ponder a democracy.This paper argues that implememnting a astronomic extent of society check over undermines the life story of democracy as the politicians become to a greater extent than than(prenominal) concerned with appeasing their caller attractors for their individual(prenominal) social welf ars, instead of truly even offing the desires and demands of the citizens of their idiosyncratic constituencies. As mentioned previously, it is argued that strict fellowship discipline is necessary to see that the current governnig party maintains its power since a vote of non assurance in the House of Commons dope ultimately lead to federal re-election, or re-appointment of the prime attend.However, as Kilgour et al. rgue in Crosscurrents Contemporaty semi semipolitical Issues (2013 205), enforcing strict cohesion strategies to ensure party unity leads to outgrowths of Parliament to become extreamly inactive as they no longer conceive for themselves, only when merely conform to the demands of their party leaders. Their opinions and thoughts argon constrsained by a attention of a loss of mass in the House Of Commons. It is very crucial for any political party to value and admiration the opinions of its members to assess a situation more closely and obtain diverse opinions. However, sacrosanct party discipline stifles the v alues and opinions of individual members of party.Consequently, this diversity of imagination is replaced by a single unit of party that bounces a single, rigid opinion on well-nigh issues. This devalues the sense of liberty and freedom that is wanted by democracy. Often times, it is observed that the members of a party vote in a similar fashion, not just to ensure a mass confidence motion, but too to derive personal gains. If a member of parliament wishes to advance their political career and gain quicker forward motions, he or she muct act according to the manage of their party leaders (Kam, 2006).Expression of discord from the MPs can have fearsome consequences for their career. They can be warned about the want of financial support, or even be ultimately expelled from the party caucus. Kam (2006) in like manner suggested that the promotion of ministers is greatly manipulated by the prime minister to ensure maximum conformation to the partys position. Sometimes, cert ain ministers of parliament are deliberately brought into the cabinet as it is besides dangerous to leave them as a backbencher (a member of House of Commons) where they can openly challenge and vote against the position of the leader of the political party.This suggests that the deliberate promotion, or demotion, ministers of parliament is not imputable to their, merits or demerits, but is rather strategically devised to overall benefit the party. In addition, the vote of the members of the House of Commons not only does not represent the opinions of individual ministers, but also it not a representation of a members unyielding and unconditional the true to his or her party.Rather, it is a conscious decision to vote according to the wishes of the party leader to maintain the imge of conformity and ensure personal gains and benefits for the members of parliament, which would reward in the form of more opportunities to ascend the political ladder and make water personal and profe ssional gains that do not particularly benefit the citizens of the consituency that choose the member of parliament. It is unquestionable that voting in the Canadian House of Common is exceedingly make grow and very highly regulated by emloying various methods.The study of the patterns of recorded votes shows that majority of votes show some no jib from the party members. Also, rejection of major government motions due to dissent of the members of the House of Commons is extremely rare (Malloy, 2003). Canada operates on a system of majoritarian parliamentary government. Cohesion of political parties is very essential to maintain a majority rule by ensuring that vote of non confidence is not ever issued (Kam, 2001).Due to this perpetual threat of the possibility of loss of majority and formation of a coalition, political parties are very strongly disciplined by their leaders. A coalition governmet is not inevitably always detremental. It can help to surrogate more cooperation in different political parties and compel the members of a party to reach the opinions and views that are different from the ideology share by their party. It also provides an opportunity for a greater debate and consideration ahead arriving at a common decision.Maintaining strong party discipline just to snuff it the possibility of the formation of a coalitions limits the possibilities for political experimentation and possible positive growth. The pitch is not just welcomed, but also deliberately resisted using the traditional practice of oppressive party discipline. The members of parliament are elected by, and are required to respresent the citizens of their individual constituencies.The common vision shared by their party and party leader may or may not reflect the wishes of the citizens. The first and foremost duty of an MP is to cater to the necessitate and the demands of the citizens who representativeally elected him or her. The loyalty to ones party should be a a lternative priority. However, as observed, most times, this is not the case. This badly debilitates the sole purpose of a parliamentary government which demands the citizens voice and opinions to be comprehend above all others.Although some degree of party discipline may be required to control and maintain cohesion within the House of Commons to draw a bead on policies and arrive at a loaded decision, it does not really encompass democratic ideas. Party discipline compells the members of a party to not pay heed to the needs of the citizens, but to blindly follow the demands do by their party leaders.This practice is also morally questionable as the political success of ministers of parliament is largely ground on their loyalty to the partys alues, even if they contradict his/ her personal opinions. sort of of being constantly threatened by the possiblity of losing the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, profound diversifys need to be made to change the West mister Parliamentry structure to alter, if not eliminate, this system that makes it almost mandatory for the parties to implement rigid party discipline. Limiting the extent of the party discipline would help to make the Canadian government more democratic by accomodating more diverse ideas and opinions.