The United States and Canada

This edited volume compares the political systems of the United States and Canada, focusing on the effects of political institutions, and their interaction with political values and other factors, in policymaking. It explores the differences between the American presidential (or separation-of-powers) system and the Canadian parliamentary system. It also considers institutional differences such as federalism, bureaucratic leadership, and judicial definitions of citizens’ rights. It deals mainly with the period from the mid-20th century to the present but also discusses recent developments—especially the Trump presidency. The first section addresses political culture and institutions and considers political values, party and electoral systems, executive leadership and the legislative process, bureaucracy and civil service influence, and federalism. The second section addresses policymaking and outcomes, including economic policy, environmental policy, morality issues, social policy, managing diversity, and selected societal outcomes. The conclusion discusses prospects and challenges for both political systems and finds that policy differences between the two countries have diverse causes—from geography and demography, to political values, to institutional structures. The effects of institutions are often crucial, but they depend heavily on interactions with other political circumstances. Even modest, incremental change in the electoral strength or ideological tendencies of the political parties can transform institutional performance. Thus, Canada’s historic center-left moderation may be on the brink of giving way to wider ideological fluctuation and the U.S. political system was increasingly dysfunctional, even before the election of Donald Trump as president led to chaos in policymaking and the threat of severe constitutional crisis.

Author(s):  
Paul J. Quirk

This chapter introduces a volume that compares the political systems of the United States and Canada, with special attention to the effects of political institutions, and their interaction with political values and other factors, in policymaking. It explores differences between the American presidential (or separation-of-powers) system and the Canadian parliamentary system, along with a number of further institutional differences, and assesses policymaking and outcomes in a variety of areas. Focusing on long-term characteristics, it deals mainly with the period from the mid-20th century to the present, but it also gives specific attention to recent developments, especially the Trump presidency. This introductory chapter provides a “primer” on each of the two political systems and describes the focus and objectives of each chapter.


Author(s):  
Paul J. Quirk

This concluding chapter synthesizes the main lessons of the book. Overall, the book suggests that effects of institutions—including those of parliamentary versus presidential or separation-of-powers systems—are contingent on other political circumstances, especially the state of the political party system, and yet that these effects will often shape important outcomes. The chapter reviews the book’s comparisons between the United States (U.S.) and Canada on political values and culture; electoral and party systems; executive leadership and legislative processes; bureaucratic influence; and federalism. It then reviews the comparisons of several policy areas—economic policy, environmental policy (climate change); social policy (healthcare); morality policy (abortion and gay rights); and diversity and inclusion (immigration and civil rights)—and of selected societal outcomes. It discusses the Trump presidency as both an indication and a cause of deterioration in American political institutions, and closes by considering the challenges facing both the U.S. and Canadian political systems.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi

This book is about the stunning birth and growth of judicial review in the civil law world, since 1945. In Volume I of this two-volume series, I showed that judicial review was born and grew in common law G-20 constitutional democracies and in Israel primarily: (1) when there is a need for a federalism or a separation of powers umpire, (2) when there is a rights from wrongs dynamic, (3) when there is borrowing, and (4) when the political structure of a country’s institutions leaves space within which the judiciary can operate. The countries discussed in Volume I were the following: (1) the United States, (2) Canada, (3) Australia, (4) India, (5) Israel, (6) South Africa, and (7) the United Kingdom....


2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo O. de la Garza ◽  
Muserref Yetim

This paper argues that Mexican American views of democracy differ significantly from those of Mexicans because of their exposure to the political institutions and culture of the United States. Our results vindicate Diamond's claim that there is no better way of developing the values, skills, and commitments of democratic citizenship than through direct experience with democracy (Diamond 1999). Equally significant is that the study demonstrates that ethnic ties do not determine political attitudes. That is, despite a shared historical background and contemporary cultural commonalities, Mexican views of democracy differ from those of Mexican Americans. Este artíículo arguye que las visiones de la democracia de los mexicano-americanos difieren significativamente de las de los mexicanos debido a su exposicióón a las instituciones de políítica y cultura de los Estados Unidos. Nuestros resultados justifican la idea de Diamond de que no hay mejor manera de desarrollar los valores, habilidades y el compromiso con una ciudadaníía democráática qua a travéés de la experiencia directa con la democracia (Diamond 1999). De igual importancia, el estudio demuestra que los lazos éétnicos no determinan las actitudes polííticas. Esto es, a pesar de compartir un trasfondo históórico y de las concordancias culturales contemporááneas, las visiones de la democracia de los mexicanos difieren de las de los mexicano-americanos.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (04) ◽  
pp. 804-805
Author(s):  
Ruth Iyob

Victor T. Le Vine, professor emeritus of political science, analyst, and commentator, died on May 7, 2010, after a brief illness. Le Vine, an only son, was born in Berlin in 1928. His family fled Nazi Germany and lived in France until they immigrated to the United States in 1938. A polyglot, fluent in French, German, and Russian, he was a rigorous researcher, a dedicated teacher, and an encyclopedic repository of classical works in politics, history, literature, and music. He mentored hundreds of graduate and undergraduate students in his 47 years as an academic and was known for using his multilingual skills and photographic memory to make every class lecture come alive—at times accompanying them with his vivid newspaper clippings that he collected from his travels. In his classroom, the politics of the postcolonial world were peppered with vignettes of his experiences as a participant observer in the heyday of Africa's decolonization. He shared with his students the emergence of the political systems of diverse countries such as Benin, Cameroon, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Eritrea, Ghana, France, Israel, the PRC, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Zaire (DRC).


2004 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 845-853
Author(s):  
Crisca Bierwert

Twenty years ago a work entitled The Nations Within examined the political structures that keep Native polities embedded within the United States, and the legal armature that sovereignty principles might provide for future activism (Deloria and Lytle 1984). The Native nations are still “within,” in the political sense, but they are “out” in public discourses; activism has given sovereignty claims more standing that all but dreamers would have imagined in 1984. During the same period, however, federal Indian policies have alternatively buttressed and undercut the power of tribal leadership, just as they have on other continents where imperial powers have cultivated “Native authorities.” Such destabilizing shifts impel scholars of Native political, economic, and cultural histories to examine less visible violence and inequalities that underlie political institutions, particularly those that remain as evident constructions of power change.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gholamreza Jalali ◽  
Seyyed Vahid Lajevardi ◽  
Abbas Ali Heydari

In the political systems of nations, independence from the political pressure exerted by government officials and legislators guarantees the impartiality of judges. Thus, the power of judges to review public law and to violate the constitution by them acts as a fundamental obstacle to the possible abuse of power by the state. This power requires the courts to be independent and able to make their decisions based on the law. Administrative and institutional independence of the judiciary has never been a matter of purpose and has not been an inherent matter, but has been a means of securing the independence of the judge. Because the mere organizational and organizational independence of the judiciary is as valid as the independence of the legislature and the executive. The emphasis, therefore, on judicial independence in this sense must, to some extent, be that the balance of power is maintained. Just as judges in the United States and England are elected by political bodies such as the President and the Senate, there must be a way for the judiciary to maintain the balance of power, which is nothing but judicial oversight


1987 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Ajzenstat

Philip Resnick argues that Montesquieu is seminal for an understanding of Canadian institutions. We find in nineteenth-century Canada, he says, not Montesquieu's separation of powers doctrine, so influential in the United States, but his teaching about the mixed constitution, that is, government by a combination of monarchic, aristocratic and democratic institutions. He argues that this influence shows in such typical features of our political culture as acceptance of hierarchical patterns, deference to authority and so on; these are reflections of the “disdain for democratic excesses” inherent in the mixed constitution. He then goes on to suggest that we have grown out of the mixed constitution in the twentieth century, but that as a result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms relations between the political and judicial powers in Canada have so come to resemble the American that we are justified in saying that Canada in this one respect is now characterized by the separation of powers. We have moved from the Montesquieu of the mixed constitution to the Montesquieu of the separation of powers.


Author(s):  
Lindsey Flewelling

Two Irelands beyond the Sea: Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920 uncovers the transnational movement by Ireland’s unionists as they worked to maintain the Union with Great Britain during the Home Rule era of Irish history. Overshadowed by Irish-American nationalist relations, this transnational movement attempted to bridge the Atlantic to gain support for unionism from the United States. During the Home Rule era, unionists were anxious about Irish-American extremism, apprehensive of American involvement in the Irish question, and eagerly sought support for their own movement. Two Irelands beyond the Sea explores the political, social, religious, and ethnic connections between Irish unionists and the United States as unionists appealed to Americans for backing and reacted to Irish nationalism. The role of the United States in unionist political thought is also investigated, as unionists used American history, political systems, and Scotch-Irish ethnic traditions to bring legitimacy to their own movement. This examination drives the study of Irish unionism into a new arena, illustrating that Irish unionists were much more internationally-focused than generally portrayed. Two Irelands beyond the Sea challenges our understanding of Irish unionism by revealing the many ways in which unionists reached out to the United States, sought international support, and constructed their own image of America to legitimize the unionist movement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document