Summary
The article is about how in popular perception the powers vested in the Prime Minster and his cabinet is deemed to be such that it can be called that we are living in an autocracy. The key theme in the article is about how the concentration of power and the charges of autocracy are justified to a certain extent but not to the type of characterization in the popular press. The author of the article is arguing that there is a need to reform the institution of the prime minister and curtail some of the undemocratic powers that have been vested with him. The author is making this argument because he believes that some recent decisions taken in the context of economic conditions have given rise to the suspicion that we are living in an autocracy. The author supports his argument by relying on data that supports his contention about some autocratic tendencies that have crept into the system.Critique
The weakest parts of the article are to do with how the author extrapolates simple data to make sweeping generalizations. For instance, the author points to the fact that given the prevalence of poverty in Canada, there is a need to do more. Though this is perfectly valid, the fact that the prime minister and the cabinet took decisions that did not reflect the popular consensus is shown to be proof of autocracy. Indeed, it can be said that this is the weak point of the article as the author is jumping to conclusions without any real basis. The author is clearly missing the fact that he has argued elsewhere in the article that to consider the prime minister autocratic would be farfetched. However, the author seems to have fallen into his own trap and hence, it can be said that the author is missing some key aspects of the debate over whether the prime minister’s powers must be curtailed.
As far as actual political practice is concerned, the existence of more stringent system of checks and balances would ensure that any autocratic tendencies of the prime minister and his cabinet could be regulated and restrained through this mechanism. In other words, for actualizing the changes suggested by the author, the system of more checks and balances in the form of the legislature being given importance than what it has right now can solve the problem that the author is addressing in the article. Further, the problem of too much power vested in the prime minister can be addressed by delegating more powers to the ministers and by actualizing; the principle of collective responsibility wherein the members of the cabinet are held accountable can be the solution. This research is a valuable addition to the existing body of literature on the political system in Canada and hence, this research is bound to help other political scientists in their quest to better understand the Canadian system of governance.
References
Bakvis, H. (2000). Prime Minister and Cabinet in Canada: An Autocracy in Need of Reform? Journal of Canadian Studies , 35 (4), 49-68.
