Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox
We need to draw, here, a clear distinction between the executive and legislative branches of government.
Granted, this can be a more complicated exercise in a parliamentary democracy, where the executive and legislative branches can sometimes be seen to overlap, but in this particular instance it is worth the discussion to come to a proper understanding. Any contemporary political scientist would define one of the roles of the executive as the supervision of a state's armed forces. In our Canadian context, the executive would be the prime minister and Cabinet (acting through "advice" to the Crown), and the legislative would be the Parliament of Canada.
So what if it's the government who put to a vote or just the Prime Minister making the decision?
Last I check he and the government are supposed to represent our
interests, not the interests of self righteous nations hell bent to fight wars they'll never win..... whom never seem to want to fight a tangible target, but fight an ideal and way of life.
If 50%+ or a far greater majority of the population want our troops to come home and end this crap in Afghanistan, Harper by Obligation to our system of government representation should abide by our demands..... otherwise he's not doing his job and therefore should be replaced.
Making decisions all on his own, regardless of what the country wants isn't democracy, that's a dictatorship..... we don't just vote someone into office just for them to forget all their election promises and the fact that they're supposed to do what we want/need them to do..... they're not elected to have a 4+ year run to do whatever they damn well please.
That sort of BS might work in the US, but it sure as hell shouldn't be happening here.
So, given the broadly-understood role of the executive in political systems, it is the prime minister and Cabinet, exclusively, who may make decisions in regards to Canadian Forces deployments abroad. Let us be equally clear here, though--this does not derail Canada's status as a democracy. The Cabinet can only govern for as long as it has the support of the elected representatives in the House of Commons; our representatives may at any time choose to reject the Government's agenda, or to express non-confidence, in which case the Government would be defeated and other representatives would have the opportunity to change the nature of our intervention in Afghanistan.
That would be all well and good if our Prime Minister wouldn't Prorogue Parliament any time he thinks he's facing a non-confidence vote...... delay in democracy is no democracy at all...... so don't preach to me what Democracy is or isn't.
You use the word "Representative" a lot up there..... yet you seem to explain the above as though these representatives are still separate from the rest of us, in that they still make up decisions they like or are whipped into making...... rather then actually getting feedback from those who voted them into power and actually representing our best interests.
But we all know that's not happening.... instead of our MP's we elect representing our interests, they're in turn forced by their party leaders to vote as they dictate in order to show some stupid image of a "Unified" party...... but a unified party is useless if they're not representing the interests of the public, but just representing the interests of their leader.
The way you explain it, Democracy begins and ends at elections and after the elections are done..... everything else is up to these politicians to make things up and determine what they think is best for us, rather then doing what we want or say is best as a collective.
..... That just sounds like a democratic mockery to me.
The confused statements by the current prime minister have made these clear facts somewhat murky, and he should be very much condemned for the disservice that he has done to the preservation of executive prerogatives; before there is any more confusion, it should be acknowledged by all sides that the executive, solely and exclusively, may decide on deployments, and it is the role of legislators to oversee, but not dictate to, the executive (except in cases where the executive breaches the privileges or supremacy of Parliament).
Funny, I thought the Governor General was the Chief and Commander of our military, not Harper..... and therefore it's the Gov.General who has the final say on what our military does...... regardless of all that, not one single leader of ours, be that the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the damn Queen herself should be able to just send off our men and women to fight in some pointless war without the overwhelming support of the population.... since it is the population of this country that makes up the military they're sending off to fight in the first place.
Last edited by Praxius; Nov 15th, 2010 at 02:51 PM..