Print Сite this

Political Systems: Canada’s Case

Approval of Executive Initiatives by Legislature

The legislature plays a poignant role in checking the executive. Through legislating laws and power to approve or disapprove, the unilateral decisions of executive officers are checked. The legislature has members who are representative of different interest groups. Due to different interests, issues are better vetted when executive initiatives are subject to parliamentary approval than when left to the executive alone. Dictatorial and totalitarian regimes often do not have strong parliamentary checks and balances. The leaders or executive officers often have a huge gray space within which they can make unilateral decisions that are taken without question. In democracies like the US, the president and other executive officers have the power to order or make decisions that are taken, in a sense, as law. The only way of challenging the decisions is through court or the legislative assembly (Dye & Zeigler 125).

Our experts can deliver a customized essay
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
308 qualified specialists online
Learn more

In most presidential regimes, the president’s powers are defined by the extent of decisions on which parliamentary approval is necessary. By and large, beyond parliament approval requirements, there are wide gray areas within which the executive makes decisions that are largely unchecked. Riding on these gray areas, the executive may tend towards given unilateral decisions that are within legal stipulations. This basically implies that beyond parliament approval, executive powers are immense and can be used in any way by the powers that be. For a country to avoid having a dictatorial presidency or leadership there should be proper checks and balances. The judiciary checks the executive but the gray areas in law give the executive a playing field within which they can dictate. The only sure way of avoiding such a scenario is empowering parliament or legislatures. By ensuring that all important presidential decisions are subject to parliament approval, even actions within the law that may be lopsided or unwise, are debated and disallowed by parliament (Dye & Zeigler 116).

Direct Democracy

Ideally, democracy should be direct i.e. the public directly engages itself to formulate rules, policies, resolve conflicts and exercise executive authority. This is unlike the widely practiced representative democracy where a few are elected from among different interest groups to represent the interest groups in national governance processes. In direct democracy, individuals participate in governance or national decision making directly i.e. no one represents another; every man or woman is one vote (Boyer 12). Principles of democracy demand that every individual’s view ought to be heard. Representative politics works well in the many instances where the elected stand for common interests. On some matters, common interest is not easily established or the issue affects each individual too directly that every individual must be given an opportunity to voice his support for or against.

For instance, in matters to do with change from one constitution to another, all citizens must have a say. It is for this reason that referendums are done to enact a new constitution. In matters to do with election or recall of a leader, the people have to be given the opportunity to have their voice heard. In Canada, there have been efforts from some political think tanks to extend direct democracy to public veto over legislation by parliament of executive. If any individual voters felt a given law is not in tandem with national interests, there could be instituted mechanism of them filing a petition with government and the same being subjected to a referendum. If the majority support the legislation, it is retained; if they oppose it should be quashed. Therefore, direct democracy can be introduced in Canada through allowing for referendum on major issues of national interest. Direct democracy can also be effectively exercised at lower levels of governance e.g. in town councils (Boyer 19). Given town meetings do not attract crowds that cannot be managed properly; with the help of electronic voting software, issues can be decided directly by locals instead of representatives or politicians imposing their will on the people.

Failures of Parliament

Parliament has failed Canadians in its role as law maker because politicians are hell bend on partisan and selfish interests than considering the public good or deep seated desires and interests of the populace. There are many laws that do not appeal to the public and some of them are even used as campaign items whenever there are elections. There interesting thing is that once the representatives get into parliament, they forget all about public interest. For instance, the charter of rights and freedoms is widely criticized. Some politicians have ridden on its unpopularity to win elections but only to go mum or their efforts are frustrated by other members of parliament (Boyer 39).

Although the charter is generally understood to be well meaning, it gives the Supreme Court excessive powers. The Supreme Court, which consists of political appointees i.e. judges appointed by politicians, has sweeping powers on the legislative process. Any law passed by parliament has to be ratified by the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court consider any legislation inconsistent with the constitution, it is returned to parliament or thrashed. This means that the executive through the Supreme Court (judges appointed by executive) can control what pieces of legislation passed in parliament are enforced. By allowing such a scenario, parliament abdicates its own chief mandate as law making organ and subjugates its decisions to those of Supreme Court. By so doing, parliament is no longer what it should be i.e. supreme representative of people’s interests.

To make the parliament more responsive and responsible as an institution the prerogative of the Supreme Court has to be challenged (Boyer 76). Secondly, to ensure all interest groups are well represented, allowing special seats can be helpful. Finally, the public need have a say on legislation i.e. if parliament does not pass or passes laws that are not in tandem with public interest, there should be away ordinary citizens can push for abolition or sustaining of such legislation. Empowered citizenry will raise the par and ensure parliamentarians are actively involved and own the legislative process.

On-Time Delivery! Get your 100% customized paper
done in
as little as 3 hours
Let`s start

Senate and Policy Making

Parliament, which is ideally supposed to be the link between government and its people, has over the years become very unrepresentative of the people. The only way parliament can assure public interest in government initiatives is through legislative process. However, the executive has taken the legislative process hostage and judiciary through Supreme Court also seems to override parliament. Therefore, parliament is no longer the supreme law-making organ in the land.

Due to constraints and selfish interest of individual parliamentarians and political parties, the interests of the citizens are last to consider. Once a parliamentarian is elected, what they care about is political party position and their own individual desires and aspirations. There is no consultative framework between the people and the parliamentarians.

The senate has an important role to play as another representative of the public. Once parliament passes legislation, senate is supposed to debate the same soberly with the interest of the nation or public as guiding principle. However, bickering in the senate due to selfish interests has also crippled this institution. Reforming the senate so that it remains a sober evaluator of legislation passed in parliament is a sure way of guaranteeing public interest or national interest in formulated policies.

The senate would well serve as the final decision maker with regard to policy formulation. However, the senate is often controlled by majority group members. Therefore, the senate just like parliament has to be reformed to ensure it can adequately address the needs of minority groups. Just as it is desirable to have special seats for minorities in parliaments e.g. individuals with disabilities, the senate should also have such like seats. Further, the work relationship between parliament and senate has to be refined so that the two institutions check each other on principle

The US Congress

Congress in the US plays a very significant role in checking the executive. The House of Representatives, together with its parallel institution the senate, vets government initiatives and no legislation becomes law without congress approval (Dye & Zeigler 34).

Congress has largely fulfilled its mandate of checking the executive because the president has no control whatsoever of congress proceedings. All the executive can do is appeal and persuade congress to tow its line. If executive decisions are not persuasive enough, they are not implemented as long as either congress institution tramps them. However, due to the influence of lobbyists and other powerful interest groups, congressmen are in a number of instances compromised. As such they work for lobbyists interests instead of public interest.

Over time, representation of minorities in senate and House of Representatives improved. Significant improvements were registered during the 1990s after legislation enabling minority groups to elect one of their own to congress were fully operational. For instance, the disabled are well represented in the congress.

We’ll deliver a custom paper tailored to your requirements.
Cut 15% off your first order
Use discount

As concerns the legislative process, the House of Representatives and the senate are considered as equal in powers. This is the reason why no law is enacted with approval of both chambers. However, House of Representatives has unique power or jurisdiction over revenue related matters and is the one that can move an impeachment motion against the presidency (Dye & Zeigler 51).

. The senate is mandated to approve presidential appointments. It is also in the power of the senate to ratify treaties. Finally, only the senate can hear impeachment cases against the president. Therefore, apart from its primary role i.e. legislation, congress has another critical role of overseeing and inspecting operations of the executive. Whenever there are weighty issues, joint session i.e. senate and house of representative come together and make joint determinations.

The senate is generally held in higher esteem than the House of Representatives (Dye & Zeigler 63). This is because a senator represents a larger area and population i.e. in each state there are only two senators while representatives are elected in every district. The senate position is more stable as senators serve a six year term while representatives only serve for two year terms.

The Administration of Government


Bureaucracy is a term that was coined from French word bureau and Greek word kratos (Kramer 8). The French word bureau basically referred to office from where individuals worked. Kratos, on the other hand is Greek of power. Bureaucracy found usage in Europe after the French revolution. At this time in history, focus in management was on systems and how different organs fitted into one another. Therefore, bureaucracy is characterized by orderly and strict manner in which an organization is run. In a bureaucracy, work is well defined and each individual knows his or her place. Authority of power is hierarchical and formal communication channels are emphasized. Individuals progress through ranks gradually and total respect for up line managers is the norm.

Social scientist, Max Weber is credited with the entrenchment of bureaucracy in organizational management around the world. He theorized that bureaucracy made a lot of sense as it enabled rationalization of processes in an organization (Kramer 28). The rationalization process makes operations efficient and effective. For Weber, bureaucracy is characterized by objectiveness and impartiality. Secondly, bureaucracy allows for establishment of long lasting systems that cannot easily be destroyed. Finally, bureaucracy helped concentrate power in an organization thus the line of authority is well understood and appreciated.

Weber pointed out several principles that guide a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy, authority is enshrined or dependent on the position one hold in the organization (Kramer 6). Therefore, the higher one is up the hierarchy of positions, the more power the individual has. Considering power in a bureaucracy, power is concentrated at the top (an inverted triangle is a good representation of power structure in a bureaucracy). The second principle is that in a bureaucracy performance capacity determines position held by an individual. Meritocracy therefore is a core value in a bureaucracy. Thirdly, position and related power has to be clearly defined in an organization. Therefore, in a bureaucracy, the line of authority and expected relations are clearly specified. In a bureaucracy, everybody knows what is expected of him or her and what kind of expectations are tenable. To facilitate the discussed characteristics, in a bureaucracy, there exists an elaborate framework or rules that guide every aspect of the organization. Finally, there are established frameworks that guide compensation; compensation is largely dependent on position in organization.

Over the years, bureaucracy has been proofed to stifle creativity and impede performance improvement. However, there is no way organizations can do away with bureaucracy completely. There has to be a level of control and accountability in an organization that may be hierarchical or not. Even in loosely constituted start ups, accountability is only possible where individuals adhere to certain informal or formal protocol. Large organizations cannot afford not to institute bureaucratic processes. Despite tolerated flexibility, for control and accountability purposes, formal channels of communication, reporting frameworks and requisition processes are very crucial.

Politics and Administration

In current political thought, the government is largely viewed as a huge organization with different departments. The state is much bureaucratized with well defined administrative units leading to the final or supreme administrative unit either in the person of a president or prime minister and his or her office. The political decisions that politicians make are largely administrative; however due to their limited expertise, they work closely with professionals widely referred to as bureaucrats.

For only $13.00 $11.05/page
you can get a custom-written
academic paper
according to your instructions
Learn more

The state and political parties are huge systems that are highly bureaucratized. Nation States and political parties posses, all discernible, characteristics of a bureaucratic organization. For instance, a political party must have a constitution. In the constitution, there are well delineated rules concerning the rights and privileges of party members and the party as an institution. Secondly, political parties often are a system will well discerned offices and reporting structures. Therefore, power is derived from position one holds and it is supposed that the higher the individual is in the hierarchy the more prerogative he or she has on party decisions. In a political party or in a state, power is concentrated at the top. The president is the supreme leader and in him or her are unmatched powers. Everyone in a political party or state knows his or her position and with each position come what one can expect and what is expected of one.

Policy implementation requires expert knowledge because it is only through proficient implementation that policy does not backfire. Policy is largely a framework that is created by politicians. It is like a roadmap or wider picture within which professionals have to come up with concrete plans and execute. Given the country is a huge entity it requires elaborate systems. This is the reason why public service is largely a bureaucracy. In the system, there are technocrats with knowledge and know how that help in policy implementation. They occupy the positions largely because of knowledge but also because of experience and thus in-depth understanding of policy implementation complexities.

It is these bureaucratic structures that make governing easy. The public should not be alarmed about involvement of bureaucrats in policy formulation and law making process. Rather, they should be alarmed at the idea of getting wrong politicians in office who may not have the necessary skills and professional know how as to guide and steer bureaucrats towards fulfilling the national mandate.

Roles of the Public Service

Many individuals in society are likely to look negatively at the public service. In many people’s mind, the public service represents the organ wasting away tax payer’s cash. For some other people, all they think about public service is in line with law enforcement i.e. individuals poking their nose in individuals life and trying to dictate what is to be done and what cannot be done. Contrary to such like sentiments, the public service is very critical to the survival of a nation. The public service ensures citizens receive all the essential services they need for their survival.

The government’s work is to guarantee an enabling environment for the comfort of all citizens. In an open economy, private companies engage in activities with profits as the ultimate end. Most private firms only have one concern i.e. profit maximization. With profit maximization as the only concern, no private firm will engage its money in provision of services that do not have a high turnover or that do not have a high return on investment in the long run. However, considering our day to day lives, some of the essential services do not have immediate returns and if they have, then they are offered at too high prices to be afforded by majority of citizens.

The first service that the government provides is security. Security is an essential service that cannot be compromised in any way. If our security organs failed, society would degenerate into anarchy as men and women try to outdo each other. If provision of security were to be left to private companies, some individuals would want to create need for the same by fueling insecurity while continuing to charge highly for provision of the same.

The second important service is education. Without government intervention in the education sector, some people cannot afford to educate their children. Research is financially intensive, without government involvement in research through research grants to academic institutions; research work in given areas would not be possible. To ensure equitable opportunities for all in society, government is deeply involved in provision of education facilities so that all may acquire enough knowledge for proper survival.

Many private institutions provide health care and housing. However, private firms are in for profits and thus private healthcare and education is normally very expensive for ordinary citizens. To afford everybody necessary health care, the government involves itself in provision of housing and health care facilities.

There are other essential items like provision of clean water for all. Left to private companies, water alone is likely to be an unaffordable item for many. Therefore, the government has to provide such services. The government also provides fire fighting services, food relief services for those who have lost means of affording food among others. Therefore, the public service is essential in ensuring all citizens can access what the need for survival despite their income.

Government Bureaucracies

Bureaucrats are equally a powerful interest group in a political system (Kramer 88). In actual sense, they form an informal constituency of their own. Through bureaucratic maneuvers and systemic channels, they advance their interests in an economy. They are a powerful force that can easily jeopardize operations in a ministry and success of government programs is largely dependent on them.

Bureaucrats defend or push their interests through structural design and reform initiatives (Kramer 123). For instance, by creating systems that guarantees security of tenure and hefty compensation for arbitrary dismissal, the professionals guard against political interference. Secondly, they also lobby politicians and directly influence policy making; given they participate in the policy making process. Through well guarded systems e.g. mandatory civil service promotion schemes, the bureaucrats guarantee their own welfare needs are met. Some bureaucrats go an extra mile to arbitrarily work for their own selfish ends.

The sponsorship scandal in Canada is a good example of a good government plan gone awry due to bureaucrats’ selfishness (Doern 9). The program was noble as it aimed at showing the people of Québec that the Canadian government cared about their interests. However, several bureaucrats and politicians misused the funds for the program through misspending and engaging in corrupt deals. Politicians used contractors that did nothing to gain access to money meant for the people in the Quebec province.

The sponsorship scandal basically poked deep holes into accountability of the Canadian federal bureaucracy (Doern 126). The inquiry into the scandal revealed an institutionalized sub culture of corruption. The federal bureaucracy is easily compromised by lobbyists and other interest groups. As a result of caucusing, much operations and tendering is done on an insider basis i.e. contractors need to find an insider and influence him or her to get a contract.

Formal and Informal Controls of Bureaucracy

Caucusing and lobbying makes it mandatory that the public service be closely monitored and controlled. A culture of corruption is entrenched in the federal bureaucracy. Therefore, only proper checks and balances can ensure corrupt deals are not perpetuated. The checks and balances can be instituted in the system so that the system in itself ensures no ills happen. Alternatively, the checks can come from outside watchdogs.

The most crucial way of making the public service responsive is through structural reforms (Kramer 166). The bureaucracy has to be realigned to better service through how operations are coordinated, the reporting structure, accounting mechanisms and general responsiveness to public concerns as enabled by improved accessibility to public scrutiny. Accounting frameworks are critical in ensuring money is not spend unwisely. Through accounting requirements instituted in the system or bureaucracy, faults or misuse of funds can easily be identified and managed.

Apart from restructuring, public service bureaucracy can be improved through capacity building (Kramer 166). Capacity building takes two forms i.e. hiring of professionals and remunerating or compensating them properly. Hiring of professionals ensures that work is done professionals; professional ethics holds them accountable or guides their way of working. When the bureaucrats are remunerated or compensated properly, they are more likely to do their work professionally. Their concerns move from need for money to need for recognition based on good service. Capacity building is also not complete without looking at continuous improvement of employees’ skills and the working environment. Employee empowerment is dependent on how much freedom they enjoy at the work place. Through being allowed operational freedom, employees exercise their creativity to come up with awesome solutions for the people they serve. A conducive working environment also goes a long way in putting employees in the right frame of mind.

The federal bureaucracy can also, formally, be improved through constituting an ombudsman office. Such an office will take the citizens’ complaints and act on them. The setting up of such an office alone will send a strong message to public servants to be more considerate while executing their duties. The office will help in arbitrating between aggrieved citizens and the federal bureaucracy. Such like efforts would encourage efficiency and effectiveness in service.

Informally, service delivery can be improved through rewarding exemplary service. If an employee demonstrates dedication to the service of the nation, there should be informal ways of recognizing and appreciating such. Unlike, formal reward systems, leaders in the public service sector can devise their own ways of rewarding good service over and above normal procedures.

A career in the public service is always very alluring. What is good about the public service is job security. In the private sector, job security is not guaranteed and things change very fast. However, the major reason why I would join the public service is to be able to serve my country and fellow citizens. I am proud of the civil servants who have held their offices in high esteem and worked for the good of the nation. Following in their footsteps is something that is both gratifying to me as an individual but also helps the nation to move forward.

Law and the Courts

Custom, ethics, justice, and law

Although the words custom, ethics, justice and law are interrelated, they have very distinct connotations that differentiate them. Custom refers to socially accepted way of doing or behavior. Custom goes hand in hand with tradition or how things have always been done. Each society, developed standards or expectations as per how individuals have to specifically respond or act in given circumstances. Societal expectations or norms often act as informal rules and attract reprimand or penalty if not observed.

Ethics refers to how people ought to behave. When it comes to ethics, considerations go beyond how people normally respond to given circumstances to establish how people ought to respond for their own good and the good of others. Ethics is about the good life i.e. how individuals can live in a fulfilling way. To develop an ethical principle or dictate, society considers the way people behave, the reasons the people have for behaving the way they do and from it all discern what is the most desirable and necessary way of behaving. The aim of ethics is to establish a theoretical framework that can guide behavior and assure people of happiness or the good life.

Laws are a set of rules institutionally enforced with the aim of assuring the good of society (David & Brierley 11). Laws in countries are embedded in a constitution which is the supreme contract between members in society; especially the rulers and the ruled. Laws are established basing on moral dictates that society ascribes to. However, there is no one conclusive moral theory that serves or appeals to all individuals in a society. Therefore, laws tend to be negotiated morally acceptable agreements; a compromise between different opposing interests. The chief concern why society institutes laws is guarantee order as opposed to chaos. Therefore, laws as a compromise are not necessarily about how people ought to behave in the ethical sense. Laws are about the compromise between how people may want to behave as informed by different moral or socio-economic factors.

Justice is a cardinal virtue which when abated leads to members of society feeling aggrieved. Justice as a concept denotes fairness, even handedness, or equality. In a political system, members will remain happy as long as justice is seen or perceived to be the guiding principle. In case of any form of favoritism or unjust treatment of a section of people in society, chaos is likely to erupt. In a political system, often there are minority and majority groups. Therefore, justice does not necessarily consist in equality in treatment but equity. This is why the concept of affirmative action guides major decisions by governments.

Law & Concept of Universal Justice

Some people tend to confuse law with universal justice as a concept. They expect laws to be universally just i.e. they should be seen everywhere or in every context as promoting and supporting or guaranteeing fairness for all. Contrary to such suppositions or sentiments, laws do not often fit into universal justice definition or requirements. Laws are basically about people and how they want to relate with each other. In many cases, it has been established that laws are unjust and thus need further refining.

Law as a word does not fit into a given definite definition. The major reason why this happens is cultural difference. Different societies or segments of societies have different norms. While democracy is a desirable in America and thus laws aim at entrenching and protecting democratic rights, in theocratic states obedience and loyalty are the greatest virtues or duties that are entrenched in law.

Universal justice is more in line with ethical considerations than legal considerations. Legal considerations are informed by people’s norms. A constitution as the basic legal document is basically a contract or agreement amongst people with regard to how they want to treat each other. The choice of how they want to relate with each other is largely dependent on cultural norms or cultural thinking. For instance, some cultures are more liberal than others. Consequently, their laws tend to be more liberal or libertarian than laws promulgated in traditional leaning societies. Universal Justice Considerations transcend cultural considerations to deal with what ought to happen. For instance, universal justice demands that people act in the way they would prefer all other people to act (universal considerations).

Legal System and Common Law

A legal system consists of ways in which different matters are to be determined and the different interpretations in law (David & Brierley 4). A legal system constitutes and defines legal subjects and the application of the same towards a just society. Different countries have different legal systems. However, a majority of countries have common law, civil law and religious laws and variations of the same as constituents of their legal systems (David & Brierley 29).

Civil law refers to legislation based laws i.e. codes passed through legislative processes and instituted in a constitution or appended to a constitution as acts of parliament. Most democratic countries around the world have legislative processes. The legislative arm of government makes laws and defines how the laws are to be enforced.

Common law relies on precedence in legal processes. Over the years, courts or legal processes have often led to legal determinations or decisions. The decisions made, later, form a reference point for judges and lawyers working on cases of similar circumstances. In common law systems, decisions by judges of higher courts are taken as legally binding and cannot be questioned by judges in lower courts. Secondly, unlike in a civil system, common laws systems do not rely much on codification through legislation process (David & Brierley 57).

English common law has influenced much of common law practice in most countries around the world. Having been a major colonizer, the English system was adopted in America, Canada and many other countries around the world. Basing on English common law, countries have been able to develop their own common law systems. For instance, most court rulings in our country are pegged on precedent rulings. Following the precedence linearly leads to rulings that are from the English system.

Islamic Legal System

Islam recognizes that man can not by any chance live in isolation. However, to live in harmony with others, social order is emphasized. It is acknowledged that when people live together, friction cannot be avoided in entirety. Therefore, Islam dictates through the teachings of Allah, the need for a judge whose work is to determine cases and pass just rulings. In Islam, law is given by God through his one and only prophet and interpreted through the teachings of other teachers after the prophet (David & Brierley 75).

The principles of justice applied in the Islamic justice system are enshrined in the values of Islam as a religion. As per Islamic traditions, the prophet Mohamed himself used to appoint judges. Therefore, the religious leaders are appointed into positions of judge. In history, during the reign of caliphs, the political leaders were in themselves the judges.

The institution of judges has continued to develop and to claim independence through history. However, at all times, the judges apply guidelines and rules as enshrined in the Quran or holly book. Everything adopted in the judicial system has to be in tandem with Sharia law. The judge does his job or duties as an obligation to God.

Lack of distinction between the social, political and judicial fabric and system in the Muslim world makes it a more perfect system when it comes to maintenance of law and order. Strict observance of Islamic law leads to a kind of total control of individual lives. There is specification for every kind of act and rulings are made as per the Quran. Everything has to be done on the basis of faith thus every judge works closely with other experts in matters of Islamic faith.

Functions of Judicial Branch Of government

The judiciary is a very important arm of government. It is sole role is to ensure justice prevails in the nation by determining of cases where there are frictions (Baldwin 142). Secondly, the judiciary vows to defend the constitution of a nation by ensuring government initiatives and civil activities are within constitutional mandate. The judiciary also checks the powers of the executive and the legislature. Checking the executive and legislature is achieved through determining legality of their initiatives and ensuring no piece of legislation passed by parliament conflicts with the constitution.

Courts are a necessary component in society. In courts, conflicts are determined and issues that would otherwise affect the society negatively are resolved. Ideally, the fewer the courts a nation has, the better. Less courts means less spending of public resources. However, reality is that society has become very dynamic with range of crimes also increasing. To avoid case back logs, increasing the number of courts is ideal.

Courts have to be trustworthy in the eyes of the citizens. To guarantee their independence, their operations have to be transparent enough. Public scrutiny of courts is important but judges have to be protected from malice and second guessing of court proceedings. This is the reason why discussing court proceeding in the public is prohibited to avoid biasing public opinion or courts appreciation of case in question.

A supreme court is the highest court in the land. Consequently, it should be presided over by experienced judges because the court deals with landmark issues. It would be ideal to expand the Supreme Court and have different Supreme Court departments or branches deal with specific jurisdictions. The issues handled in the supreme courts are also preferably limited to issues that cannot be handled by the court of appeal.

Works Cited

Baldwin, Nicholas. Executive Leadership and Legislative Assemblies. London: Routledge, 2005.

Boyer, J. Patrick. Direct Democracy In Canada: The History And Future Of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1992.

David, René & Brierley John E. C. Major Legal Systems in the World Today: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Law. 2nd Ed., Free Press, 1978.

Doern, G. Bruce. How Ottawa Spends, 2005-2006: Managing the Minority. 26th Ed., Toronto: McGill-Queen’s Press – MQUP, 2005.

Dye Thomas R., & Zeigler, Luther Harmon. The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. 7th Ed., New York: Brooks/Cole, 1987.

Kramer, Fred A. Perspectives on Public Bureaucracy: A Reader on Organization. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers, 1973.

Cite this paper

Select style


StudyCorgi. (2021, March 7). Political Systems: Canada’s Case. Retrieved from


StudyCorgi. (2021, March 7). Political Systems: Canada’s Case.

Work Cited

"Political Systems: Canada’s Case." StudyCorgi, 7 Mar. 2021,

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

1. StudyCorgi. "Political Systems: Canada’s Case." March 7, 2021.


StudyCorgi. "Political Systems: Canada’s Case." March 7, 2021.


StudyCorgi. 2021. "Political Systems: Canada’s Case." March 7, 2021.


StudyCorgi. (2021) 'Political Systems: Canada’s Case'. 7 March.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.