Functions of Legislature in Different Types of Governments

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Any government’s legislature has roles that are stipulated by its constitution. One of the main roles of any legislative arm of government is to make laws. Other functions of the legislature involve providing through the means of taxation, a continuous working process of government and acting as a watchdog for the executive. This function would be reflected through an oversight on executive policy decisions and administrative functions especially on government expenditure (OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, p. 11). In ensuring its functions, the legislature brings to fore, the relevant facts of governance to the electorate. However, the functions of the legislature vary depending on the type of government in place. Totalitarian, democratic and authoritarian governments all have different roles for the legislature.

In democratic governments, the legislature plays an oversight role through scrutiny of government functions. In democratic governments, the legislature is a stronger entity in that; it can curtail the powers of the president and check the powers of the executive in general. In some instances, the legislature becomes more powerful than other organs of government (in a democratic government). In United States for example, the president cannot sign international treaties or declare wars on other nations without the consent of the legislature.

In authoritarian governments however, the president has much control over the legislature such that his/her wishes prevail over legislatures’. Authoritarian governments are characterized by a strong sense of dictatorship tendencies in that; the wishes of the chief executive cannot be questioned. This therefore pits the president above the legislature and as a result, checks and balances cannot be effectively undertaken by the legislature. In totalitarian governments, the role of the legislature is regulated. The legislature cannot freely monitor the activities of the executive because the government regulates all aspects of public life and government. In this scenario, the wishes of the executive would also prevail as legislature is limited in its roles (OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, p. 13).

Direct Democracy

In a direct democracy, power is vested on citizens who would want to be represented in policy formulation and other aspects of governance. This happens without a representative process in place. The ideology behind direct democracies stems from their ability to provide a widespread alternative as compared to representative democracies. Democratic democracies would be preferable because representative democracies are based on party affiliations which may compromise the values of an individual. This might then override the electorate’s concerns for the party’s. In some scenarios, a large compromise is demanded that might overwhelm the representative to resign or switch parties (Guy, p. 178).

Direct democracy is however useful and practical on small-scale governance. The Canadian society could use direct democracy in areas like Town meetings and other small-scale representations. Direct democracy is effective in this case because it would be easier to incorporate the views of a small representative population than a large one. Logistics behind gathering the views becomes pertinent when dealing with a large representation. However, larger aspects of Canadian societies that are well developed could use technology in collecting views from the population. This would still require technical competence in gathering data and adequately representing the views of every participant. The applicability of direct democracy in small-scale representation would however be beneficial because the views expressed would be authentic from voters, unlike representative democracies which leave the process vulnerable to partisan interests. Governance would therefore be streamlined indirect democracies (Guy, p. 178).

Parliament in the Canadian Society

The Canadian parliament hasn’t delivered enough to the citizenry as is expected of them. The recent shutting down of parliament to avoid a “no-confidence vote” has been one rare fit for the Canadian population. This led to protests across major Canadian cities in protest against this move. This is a direct contravention of the wishes of the Canadian population. In addition, the Canadian parliament overturned legislative laws regarding anti-terror policies about juridical policies that have been in place for a long time. This consequently resulted in the limitation of a suspect’s right to public hearing (Handelman, pp. 56-59).

More has to be done to improve the state of the legislature as it is. While in some quarters, designation might be a sound idea, citizen participation and adamancy regarding pertinent issues would be a prudent approach. Equal gender participation hasn’t been well entrenched in the Canadian governance structure (brought about by a failure of legislative policies) and neither has minority representation been effectively addressed. The remedy would require designation of a section of the overall representation to these minority groups (for example the disabled) but matters such as legislation of laws would be overcome through adamancy by the citizens; for instance, the move by the public to protest the closure of parliament is a good move in adamancy for political responsibility. More initiatives like these should be supported to hold the legislature accountable for its actions to the general public. This cause should however be supported by civil society groups on the forefront.

Representation of Parliament in Canada

Some quarters of the Canadian population and the civil society have termed the Canadian parliament as unrepresentative. The Canadian parliament for example, has taken a stand on same-sex marriage but their decision has been argued to be unrepresentative. Polls conducted in Canada have revealed that most Canadians opposed redefining marriage. This was about 59%-66% of the population. The NDP and BQ however required their legislators to vote along party lines (Guy, p. 201).

Despite small instances where decisions of legislators’ are unrepresentative, the Canadian parliament has been structured to represent the opinions of a majority of the population. There have been some legislators as well, who have opposed partisan interests in representation such as Bev Desjarlais, an NDP representative who refused to vote alongside partisan interests during the debate on same-sex marriage (OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, p.12).

The Canadian parliament having been built along with two structures: territorial and “one elector one vote” makes the parliament representative of the whole population. These principles ensure that all electors from all provinces are effectively represented in the Canadian House of Commons and at the same time, each region has a fair say in the way the government works. An idea centered on representation by population is therefore in place, whereby each province is assigned the same number of seats corresponding to the number of people it represents. This therefore provides a good framework for equal representation of the Canadian population. Public policy would however reform policymaking in that; it will ensure the wishes of the public are adequately represented. It is therefore critical that public policy be religiously adhered to, for proper representation of public opinion.

US Congress and Representation of the American Public

The US congress is in place to; among other functions check the powers of the president. It is however unfortunate that the US congress hasn’t been well representative of the views of the American public. The presidency has been observed to stamp authority over the legislature, or compromise the decisions of the legislature. Consequently, the presidency has been often observed to prevail over the wishes of the legislature (OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, p. 15).

The Iraq war for example was instigated by congress and the Presidency but wasn’t representative of the American population. Beyond doubt, many Americans opposed the war from the start but the government went ahead to deploy forces in Iraq. This goes to show how congress overlooked the interests of the public for the wishes of the president, because it had the final consent in declaration of the war.

The US house of Representatives and the senate are two bodies that have close roles but aren’t meant to be carbon copies of each other. The house of commons was designed to be more representative of the people than the senate. The members of the House of Representatives are majorly elected by minority groups which entail people living in small geographical areas and states that are well defined. The senate is however elected by the entire population of the state. The interests of the House of Representatives therefore reflect on how the local people would be affected, but the senate would envisage how policies and bills would affect the nation at large. The senate is however deemed more prestigious because it encompasses the interests of the whole nation as opposed to those of a slight majority.

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is the adherence to protocols and procedures in the management of a country’s activities. The protocols and procedures are usually standardized to provide a benchmarked way of executing state activities. Bureaucracy traces its roots to ancient times in Western Europe where the term was coined from the word ‘Bureau’. A few years before 1879, bureaucracy found its rooting during the French revolution. It later spread to other countries. Large empires including Achaemenid Persia adopted the tool and later, it spread to governments. Bureaucracy was very essential for governments in the past, as they expanded their activities and increased operations.

Over the past few years, bureaucracy has been perfected by most governments and organizations. However, Max Webber’s concept of bureaucracy revolved around the specification of jobs with more defined roles, well-developed systems of supervision and coordination, large use of documents, establishment of an oversight authority, establishment of clear cut rules, training of staff according to job requirements, and allocation of work to staff who are competent enough to handle it.

Max Webber’s ideology behind bureaucracy still remains relevant today, as governments seek to contain an expansive mandate. In the face of more accountability from citizens and other oversight bodies, governments have emphasized the need to adhere to important bureaucratic measures to oversee this need. In addition, governments have also sought bureaucratic measures to contain increased government activities. Bureaucracy is therefore inevitable for governance today in ensuring proper procedures are followed and increased responsibilities put into perspective. The world cannot do with less of it (Guy, p. 202).

Politics and Administration

Politics involves politicians identifying important policy areas that require improvement through the formulation of policies to solve the intended need. However, the distinction between politics and administration becomes increasingly thin in the face of accountability. Politicians have therefore sought the knowledge of specialized administrators in effective policy formulation and implementation. It would be in the best interests of politicians to seek the views of experts in policy formulation so that practical policies can be implemented. Experts have the necessary foresight on the long-term effects of various policies and would offer priceless advice to politicians in formulation of policies. Despite the fact that experts are not electively appointed to carry out policy formulation and implementation, their inputs are still invaluable (Guy, p. 203).

A situation whereby policy formulation is basically left in the hands of politicians simply because they are the elected representative would lead to poor and impractical policy formulation. This is because most politicians are elected into office sometimes on party affiliation or popularity. This, therefore, renders politicians inexperienced in technical and expert skills needed to formulate effective policies. Policy experts, therefore, provide the framework to which such policies could be formulated.

Policy formulation should therefore be perceived as an inclusive process that should entail the participation of both politicians and experts.

Public Service

Public service is usually undertaken by the government in provision of basic services to the population either through direct service or financing through private initiatives. Public service entails the provision of services that might be termed basic human rights such as supply to clean water. The government usually avails these services to the general public through various departs such as the ambulance service, fire department services and the police. These departments offer basic services to the people but are majorly funded by the government. Public service is therefore a fundamental facet of human life that ought to be guaranteed by the government at all times. The government with the help of expatriates and volunteers provides a variety of services to the public which may vary from a doctor offering basic fast aid to repair services.

Public service is majorly availed by the government on good merit and usually entails services that are undersupplied by the private sector. Usually public service incorporates attributes that aren’t associated with an individual. Sometimes public service is usually provided by the government because the costs involved in the provision of such services would be too high for individual investors; for instance, the provision of rail service. Without the government, it wouldn’t be impossible for the citizenry to access such services. Moreover, the government is protecting its citizens through provision of basic services which if left in the hands of private individuals, would lead to exploitation of the citizens. Public service through government, therefore, makes basic social services affordable to the general population. For example, it would be more expensive for a person to source Medicare from private hospitals than from public facilities. Public service is therefore essential for the general citizenry (OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, p. 78).

Government Bureaucrats

Government bureaucrats sometimes take advantage of stipulated procedures to fulfill selfish or partisan interests. The Canadian sponsorship scandal that came to light in 2004 exposed the level of manipulation government bureaucrats engages in.

Misuse and misdirection of funds meant for the sponsorship program were noted, and massive corruption was witnessed. Sponsorship funds were awarded to firms that gave minimal or no contribution to the overall cause of the project. Part of the money was also noted to find its way back to the Liberal party and this dented badly on the image of the Canadian Federal Reserve. Accountability and integrity of the institution were highly questioned from the exposure of the scandal.

Bureaucrats have also in the past been associated with developing their own political constituents because the instruments of doing so are well within their disposal. This is majorly aimed at fulfilling partisan interests which are usually contrary to public policy. Bureaucrats build these constituencies because through the initiative, they may get donations and voter power (Guy 224). Bureaucrats, therefore, protect their interests through such systems as building political constituencies to secure funding and hold on to their positions in public offices. Most bureaucrats do this because they serve some partisan interests. It is therefore essential that such government bureaucrats are kept under close scrutiny.

Controls of Bureaucracy

Due to the vulnerability of government bureaucracy in manipulation of systems for self-interests, there is a pertinent need for governments to impose bureaucratic controls. An establishment of a multi-institutional policy-making approach would be the first step in ensuring that government bureaucracy is not abused. Vesting too much power in one institution or government agency makes bureaucratic processes vulnerable to internal manipulation. However, one institutional oversight body is not enough. The oversight body must be interlinked to others (Guy 275).

The presidency in America for example is checked by the legislature but the legislature itself cannot effectively carry out this mandate alone. This can be evidenced through the prevalence of presidential wishes in the declaration of the Iraq war. It is therefore important that the oversight body be independent or free from manipulation. Legal structures can also be put in place to check bureaucratic procedures. The law should seek to protect weak areas in the bureaucratic process from manipulation. For example, a stipulation by the law for government agencies to publish their financial report would bring more accountability to government institutions and streamline operations.

As a result Canada should have a federal ombudsman office to oversee the various operational areas of government and effectively investigate public concerns on administration. When an office of such stature is established, scandals such as the sponsorship scandal in 2004 would be easily brought to fore. Other government bureaucrats would be discouraged from engaging in such corrupt practices when an oversight body is in place. However, for effective civil service to take place, individuals of high integrity ought to be in place to oversee and check that proper service delivery is guaranteed. I would consider being a public servant considering the great level of satisfaction I would get from making a difference in the nation; however small. The biggest attraction for such a career would definitely be the level of satisfaction one would obtain in contributing to the cause of humanity which is service to a neighbor.

Custom, Ethics, Justice and Law

Custom, ethics, justice and law are usually interlinked because they aid in the realization of each facet in the ideology of proper justice to the people. However, individual meanings should be realized in understanding the overall framework. A custom is the accepted norm, tradition or practice of a society. Law is in essence, a set of rules that usually define political and economic landscapes. Laws are usually enforceable through institutions and act as a basic social arbitrator in the society to govern relationships between people, organizations and institutions. Laws are usually on two levels: domestic law and international law. Ethics is a set of principles that define proper conduct whereas justice is the ideology of moral rightness that’s based primarily on ethics standards (Guy, p. 280).

Justice, therefore, finds its validity from ethical concerns in that, true justice should be consistent with ethical standards in the society. Customs however define the perception of the society regarding various issues. The law would majorly be coined from the customs of the society and rarely would it contravene on the same. A law wouldn’t find basis in a society that perceives it as contrary to its norms. For example, the same-sex marriage debate in most countries is very controversial because it goes against the customs of most societies. Justice would then be based on law in that, if an individual breaks the law; for example kills another person, the law should be able to punish the person; but in the absence of such punishment, justice wouldn’t have prevailed.

Law

The complexities of law can be witnessed in almost every single society. The courts are therefore established to shed light on definition of laws because it would be difficult to interpret the law on a single definition. It is like law that it covers almost every individual in the society and therefore various laws might mean various interpretations for many people. In an integrated society, the law becomes controversial because of other existing regulations such as international law, customary law or religious beliefs. The law should therefore be clear in applicability and most importantly, be flexible to accommodate other interpretations (Guy, p. 278).

Law can therefore be unequaled to the principle of universal justice because different societies have different beliefs and custom systems. For example, what could be termed as just, in America might not be perceived the same way in Asia, Africa or the Middle East. The principle of law is therefore compromised by different social systems that exist in the world. In Islamic law for example, polygamy is allowed but in some societies polygamy is illegal. This, therefore, brings a common problem of applicability and interpretation of law.

Law has also been known to defy definitions except for culture because the law can be defined differently to suit various interests including individual and selfish reasons. Culture is however a socially practiced way of life that is passed from generation to generation. The law cannot therefore surpass the superiority of culture because society is defined by culture more than it is defined by law. In addition, many laws are formulated in a way that doesn’t contravene culture.

Legal Systems

A legal system is a system for interpretation and enforcement of law. There are a number of legal systems that exist in the world today; these are civil laws, common laws and religious laws. These systems of law provide a framework to which the laws are going to be implemented. For example, civil laws relating to how the people relate in civil matters such as marriage. However, these legal systems might contravene each other; for example the clause on marriage found in most civil laws might infringe on the same clause of marriage that might exist in religious laws.

The English common law has been noted to influence the Canadian law in that, some of its clauses are applicable in the Canadian society. Moreover, some Canadian laws have found their basis on English common law. Currently all provinces in Canada except for Quebec has their base in law from the English common law. Quebec is an exception because it utilizes the civil law to arbitrate issues that might arise within its jurisdiction. A common basis for common law is the criminal law which is applicable in all Canadian provinces. The Federal Statutes in Canada must refer to the Common and civil laws when dealing with issues such as the right to own property. In some quarters, this is referred to as Legal bijurialism (reference to the two bases of the law).

There is however a difference between common law and civil law in their applicability and punishments. The common law is usually executable when there is an offense against the state. Its punishment usually involves imprisonment, fines and the likes. Such crimes are varied but common to crimes such as rape, robbery or murder. Civil law on the other hand is executable when a person has committed a crime against another person. Such crimes are common to breach of contract and trespass on property. Civil crimes are usually punishable by imposition of fines (Handelman, pp. 201-203).

Islamic Law

Islamic law is one of the most religious-based laws used in the world today. The Islamic law is sometimes defined as Sharia law. Sharia law is one of the three major types of legal systems in the world today: the others are civil law and common law. Islamic law not only governs religious parts of the society, it also affects the country’s legal system. The Islamic law is therefore seen to be indistinguishable from social and political systems of countries that practice it because most of it stems from Ulema (jurists) (Türke, p. 38). Contrary to popular belief the Islamic law as a legal system doesn’t borrow much from the Quran hence its applicability in social and political circles. Back in the Islamic golden age, the Islamic legal system might have had an influence on common law and civil laws (Türke, p. 39). A number of countries currently use Islamic law including Saudi Arabia and Iran. Islamic law has been applicable among these countries as a supplement to National law. Its applicability has also stretched to areas such as the right to property, or laws governing contracts.

This law is however superior in maintaining social order as compared to other legal systems such as common law or civil law because it is comprehensive. Other legal systems experience challenges out of infringement on religious or customary practices but Islamic law incorporates these aspects. Islamic law is usually applicable in states that are predominantly Islam and therefore experiencing a conflict of law with religion or culture is usually minimal.

The Judiciary

Canada’s judicial system is a function of both the constitution act of 1967 and the country’s constitution. The Canadian Judiciary has among other functions, the mandate to interpret laws and apply them. From the doctrine of power separation, the judiciary does not make laws, but provides a mechanism for resolution of disputes by applying the laws to different facets of the case.

Canada does not need more courts or to reduce the number already in place. The four-level structure existing in the country should be maintained. The Supreme Court is at the apex of the court system with 750 other courts below it (Guy, p. 205). Though it only sits in Ottawa, the use of satellites has enabled proper functioning of the court to represent other regions. It, therefore, doesn’t require people to travel all the way to Ottawa because testimonies can be made via satellite.

Canada however needs to maintain its court structure with province representation being the main basis of public scrutiny. Population should however be factored in with states that have more populations having more representation of the courts. Structures are already in place to take care of such issues with provinces such as Quebec and Alberta each having two appellate courts.

Canada could however experience an ideal supreme court if it increases the number of judges. Currently, the court is comprised of a chief justice and eight judges. The number of judges should be increased to twelve to ease the backlog of cases. The age of judges should still be maintained at 75 for efficiency in decision-making. With an increase of judges, the number of appeal cases to be heard per year should be increased from 80 to100. Instead of sitting only three months of the year, the ideal court should sit four times in a year to comprehensively hear the increased number of cases.

Works Cited

Guy, James. People, Politics, and Government. 7^th ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Pearson Education, 2010. Print.
Handelman, Howard. Politics in a Changing World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.
OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Partnership for Democratic Governance Contracting Out Government Functions and Services: Emerging Lessons from Post-Conflict and Fragile Situations. New York: OECD Publishing, 2009.
Türke, Ralf-Eckhard. Governance: Systemic Foundation and Framework. California: Springer, 2008.

Click Here To Order Now!