Limiting the Extent of Party Discipline in Canada Essay

companionship solidarity and cohesion have always been an integral part of the Westminster Parliamentry arrangement. The leaders of the policy-making parties of the Canadian rest home of greenness , with the assistance of whips, very strongly straighten out their political companionship sections to vote on issues as a single entity, oddly in plenary sessions (Olson, 2003). Although, some degree of caller discipline is requisite for any political ships company to maintain their power as they enquire the confidence of the majority of the legislative branch of the government, this make out does non authentically reflect a democracy.This paper argues that implememnting a large finale of company discipline undermines the spirit of democracy as the politicians become more than refer with appeasing their party leaders for their ain benefits, instead of truly representing the desires and demands of the citizens of their individual constituencies. As mentioned previousl y, it is argued that strict party discipline is necessary to ensure that the authentic governnig party maintains its power since a vote of non confidence in the digest of Commons can in the long run lead to federal re-election, or re-appointment of the anthesis rector.However, as Kilgour et al. rgue in Crosscurrents Contemporaty Political Issues (2013 205), enforcing strict cohesion strategies to ensure party unity leads to processs of Parliament to become extreamly passive as they no long-lived think for themselves, but merely conform to the demands of their party leaders. Their opinions and thoughts argon constrsained by a fear of a loss of majority in the House Of Commons. It is very crucial for any political party to value and think of the opinions of its members to assess a situation more closely and obtain divers(prenominal) opinions. However, strong party discipline stifles the values and opinions of individual members of party.Consequently, this diversity of liking is replaced by a single unit of party that reflects a single, firm opinion on most issues. This devalues the sense of liberty and freedom that is valued by democracy. Often times, it is observed that the members of a party vote in a similar fashion, non just to ensure a majority confidence motion, but also to derive personal gains. If a member of parliament wishes to advance their political c arer and gain quicker promotions, he or she muct act according to the command of their party leaders (Kam, 2006). reflexion of dissent from the MPs can have dire consequences for their career. They can be warned about the lack of financial support, or even be ultimately expelled from the party caucus. Kam (2006) also suggested that the promotion of ministers is greatly manipulated by the prime minister to ensure maximum conorganization to the partys position. Sometimes, certain ministers of parliament are deliberately brought into the cabinet as it is too dangerous to go steady them as a backbencher (a member of House of Commons) where they can openly quarrel 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 due to their, merits or demerits, but is rather strategically devised to general benefit the party. In addition, the vote of the members of the House of Commons not except does not represent the opinions of individual ministers, but also it not a representation of a members unyielding and unconditional truth 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 personal and professional gains that do not particularly benefit the citizens of the consituency that take the member of parliament. It is unquesti onable that voting in the Canadian House of Common is super disciplined and very highly regulated by emloying various methods.The ask of the patterns of recorded votes shows that majority of votes show almost no dissent from the party members. Also, rejection of major government motions due to dissent of the members of the House of Commons is super 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 constant nemesis 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 necessarily always detremental. It can help to foster more cooperation in different political parties and compel the members of a party to consider the opinions and views that are different from the ideology sha red by their party. It also provides an opportunity for a greater debate and consideration before arriving at a special K decision.Maintaining strong party discipline just to eliminate the possibility of the formation of a coalitions limits the possibilities for political experimentation and possible positive growth. The change 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 essential to respresent the citizens of their respective constituencies.The common vision shared by their party and party leader may or may not reflect the wishes of the citizens. The offset printing and foremost duty of an MP is to cater to the needs and the demands of the citizens who democratically elected him or her. The committedness to ones party should be a secondary priority. However, as observed, most times, this is not the case. This severely debilitates the sole suggest of a democ ratic government which demands the citizens voice and opinions to be heard to a higher place all others.Although some degree of party discipline may be required to control and maintain cohesion within the House of Commons to propose policies and arrive at a firm decision, it does not sincerely 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 make by their party leaders.This practice is also morally questionable as the political success of ministers of parliament is largely based on their loyalty to the partys alues, even if they contradict his/ her personal opinions. Instead of world constantly threatened by the possiblity of losing the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, primitive changes need to be made to change the Westmister 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.