From as early as the 18th century, the need to have the peoples interests represented by some form of political party had begun to arise. As the nation grew, more and more people gained the right to vote. These citizens had opinions on what and how they believed the administrations should be run in order that their interests are well served. Political discussions begun and people started to voice either their distaste or approval of how the government was being run (Michael 1992). These strong opinions consequently formed the basis of the first political parties and up to date, still continue to do so.
Rise and fall of the Federal and Democratic-Republican Parties
The Federal Party (1789-1820) was founded by Alexander Hamilton and was the first political party. The federalists supported a stronger central government as opposed to the anti-federalists who had wanted the independence of the states. The party gained popularity with the ratification of the Constitution by the States because prominent anti-federalists announced their intention of supporting the Constitution. It however began to face opposition in 1970 when Hamilton, the then Treasury Secretary, proposed assumption of the State debts by the central government that had been incurred during the Revolutionary War. These efforts to give more powers to the Central Government did not succeed and the federalists gradually vanished from existence (Michael 1992).
The Democratic-Republicans party thus arose in opposition to the propositions of Hamilton and his supporters, especially the economic and foreign policies. The party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1972. Jeffersons supporters saw Hamiltons party as a sort of a monarchy. The Democratic Party was a true nationalistic party and remained strong for decades. It began to fall as a result of the members loosing focus. They no longer met to discuss ideologies and started to support each other based on personalities. During the1824 elections, the party literally dissolved into two, with some supporting Adams, and these later evolving into the National Republican Party, and the others supporting Andrew Jackson, majority of who formed the modern Democratic Party (Sean 2005).
The Whig Party
The Whig Party (1833-1856) was formed mostly as an opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson. The party was in favor of the supremacy of congress rather than the executive. The party later died due to the difference in opinion over the issue if slavery; while some wanted slavery to be expanded to the territories, others wanted it abolished (Sean 2005).
Conclusion
Today, the two main political parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democratic Party traces its roots to President Andrew Jefferson while the Republican Party, founded in 1854, had President Abraham Lincoln as its first President. The Democratic Party is the largest party in the United States and is known for its liberal position on most matters. The Republican Party is known for its conservative position on matters. It is currently the second largest party.
Political parties continue to play vital functions in the American Society just as they did back then. They are the platform on which the citizens of the United States are able to make known their beliefs as well as expectations of the incumbent governments. With the ideologies of different parties clearly known, the American people are able to keep the administration accountable whether they belong to the ruling party or not.
Works cited
Holt, Michael F. (1992). Political Parties and American Political Development: From the Age of Jackson to the Age of Lincoln. Louisiana State University.
Wilentz, Sean (2005). The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. Norton, New York.
Political governance represents how societies and countries run their affairs and the way authority and power are exercised. For the most vulnerable people in society, bad or good governance potentially makes a big difference in their lives. The inability of political institutions to provide essential services and the lack of opportunities for the poor can prevent them from getting out of poverty. In the last 20 years, there has been substantial progress in understanding the relationship between poverty and politics.
In the past, poverty studies mainly focused on how the economy influenced poverty and the demographic risks associated with poverty in the United States. However, sociology scholars have lately increased their focus on how institutions and politics influence the division of economic resources in society and how this eventually causes poverty. This research paper will investigate the relationship between politics and poverty by looking at the literature of previous studies on the topic of poverty and politics.
Research Question
How do political parties affect low-income areas?
Literature Review
Politics are central to the development of effective states because they drive change and shape development outcomes. According to Brady (157), poverty is an outcome of politics driven by collective decisions and power relations over the distribution of resources. Political institutions influence policy, which ultimately leads to poverty.
According to the power resources theory, collective actors unite and mobilize low-income citizens around common interests. These groups acquire electoral power through the formation of labor unions and Left parties. By default, the distribution of political power favors business and elites in a capitalist democracy—this favoritism results in unequal income distribution (Brady 159). Hence, mobilization of the less privileged citizens is key to gaining political power.
There are lower levels of poverty in rich democracies where there is higher unionization, Left parties have regulated government, and women form a larger proportion of parliaments (Gidron and Ziblatt 23). In Latin America, Left parties in times of steady democracy led to liberal social policies and reduced poverty levels.
Considerable research had revealed that labor unionization results in more earnings for the standard worker, lower levels of compensation for elites, and less inequality in earnings. Researchers have demonstrated that unionization leads to a decrease in the presence of underpaid jobs and improves the income of the younger, less skilled, and unpredictably employed individuals who are susceptible to poverty.
Unions ensure better compensation and greater security for workers wince they push management to increase wages, promote regulations that hinder the presence of contingent employment, and control working conditions (Brady 163). Besides, unions promote egalitarianism, shape the governance and regulation of labor markets, and influence policy. Hence, a strong link exists between labor unionization and lower inequality, more income, and poverty.
Leftist parties constitute the actors who initiate egalitarianism through policies and laws that favor the poor and minimize inequality. Parties play a vital role in the execution of social policy. Brady asserts that rich democracies with a progressive record of Leftist parties tend to experience lower levels of poverty than those governed by Right and centrist parties (Gidron and Ziblatt 32).
For instance, Latin American Nations with a significant collective presence of Leftist party power such as Uruguay and Costa Rica tend to have lower poverty levels. The impact of political parties on poverty becomes more distinct as soon as democracy is strongly fixed (Lavers and Hickey 389).
This is partly because firm democracies display more responsiveness and effectiveness regarding the distribution of state resources to promote the reduction of income inequality. It is also because political parties need considerable time to form their social and economic policies carefully (Brady 161). Besides, new or weak democracies offer few channels and opportunities for mobilization of the less advantaged.
While authoritarian governments are more likely to repress workers and the poor, political parties need to draw the working class and the poor as constituents in democracy. The consequence of this is that although democracy might not directly affect poverty, it can influence it through political parties, mature states, and collective actors (Brady 172). When political parties are competing for votes from the less advantaged people, these people are better positioned to influence policy that takes care of their needs.
In countries where political parties are stable, competition is normally between two or three parties who dominate elections. Such parties have an extent of party discipline and need to win many votes to join the government. Since these parties run for longer time horizons, they tend to gather plenty of information regarding prospective voters and the possibility of various political approaches (Lavers and Hickey 390). Each of these parties attempts to engage a broad voting public. Such parties tend to form governments that are highly committed to the less privileged citizens.
In countries with fragmented systems, it is common to find personalistic politics. Such systems involve many poorly disciplined parties with a relatively short time horizon and often do not need to acquire a vast share of votes to join the government (Lavers and Hickey 393).
These parties face high costs of information because politicians constantly undertake new activities with new opponents or allies and try to attract different voters. Such systems mainly produce governments that are lowly committed to the poor (Gidron and Ziblatt 19). Most the developing nation’s democracies are characterized by fragmented party systems which are associated with higher levels of poverty.
Political parties generally influence social policies across the world especially if they are in power. Lavers and Hickey (394) state that the impact of the control of the political party on social policy is extensive, ultimately shaping the recipients of social benefits. Most of the time, political parties have essentially varying preferences for public spending. Existing research demonstrates a strong link over time between the control of the Democratic Party and higher levels of social expenditure, particularly on social programs (Gidron and Ziblatt 20).
Political parties influence the policies and practices of the state, whereas the state executes egalitarianism. Regulatory activities cooperate with social policy to determine the distribution of resources. According to Brady (173), social policies regulate the distribution of economic resources. Through services, transfers, and taxation, policies obtain resources from the population and redistribute them to the same population at various life stages or distribute them to different people.
State policies also influence people’s earnings and investment returns. Through social policies influenced by political parties, the state taxes numerous transfers opt to avoid taxes as an indirect method of transferring resources, and sometimes disproportionately taxes those in low economic areas (Gidron and Ziblatt 26). This results in poor economic conditions for the poor and worsening of their already needy conditions. Social policies provide insurance against risks.
Most of the policies insure against unexpected events like accidents and illness, rather than unforeseen events like unemployment and relatively anticipated events like getting a child or old age (Gidron and Ziblatt 27). Hence, policies can reduce the possibility of poverty in low economic areas and mitigate the repercussions when such events occur if they focus on increasing public spending.
The decision of a political party to distribute monetary resources to the private or public sector is fundamentally a function of the policy of its members. According to Gidron and Ziblatt (34), due to the diminishing welfare role, less advantaged families have proportionately less income generated through public benefits and sources as a result of the reduced public spending.
The Democratic coalition uses policy to distribute finances to the public spending to gradually reallocate income to their voters and alleviate economic inequalities (Brady 174). On the other hand, The Republican Party advances policy intended to transfer public funds to the private sector and progressively reallocate economic resources to elites and businesses.
Conclusion
Political theories maintain that political power and government institutions influence policy, which consequently drives poverty. Political parties have a strong relationship with poverty in low economic areas. Firstly, political parties shape social policy, which in turn determines social spending. Suppose a party promotes a policy that encourages more private spending. It is likely to allocate economic resources to the elites and businesses while less income is distributed to the poor.
This tends to worsen economic inequities, which increases poverty in low economic areas. Leftist parties are associated with liberal social policies. In contrast, Right or centrist parties tend to favor the elites and businesses, which results in unequal income distribution and affects those low-income people.
The nature of political party systems also influences poverty in that stable party systems to tend to produce governments that are devoted to the poor, while fragmented party systems lead to governments that are less committed to the poor. Political parties must emphasize policies that address the needs of those in low economic areas to reduce poverty.
Works Cited
Brady, David. “Theories of the Causes of Poverty.” Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 45, 2019, pp. 155-175.
Gidron, Noam, and Daniel Ziblatt. “Center-right political parties in advanced democracies.” Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 22, 2019, pp. 17-35.
Lavers, Tom, and Sam Hickey. “Conceptualising the politics of social protection in low-income countries: The intersection of transnational ideas and domestic politics.” International Journal of Social Welfare. Vol. 25.4, 2016, pp. 388-398. Web.
A political party is formed when a group of people with common ideas of how a country should be governed come together. Political parties forward their candidates to vie for certain political offices and members of the parties are urged to vote for the party candidate (Schattschneider 1942).
Political parties also engage in enlightenment of the people, mainly about political issues. Parties also mobilize the masses to demonstrate mainly for political reasons like pressurizing a tyrant leader to step down or against police extrajudicial killings (Mair, Muller, & Plasser 2004). Political parties also try to influence the proceedings in parliament by securing a majority of seats which in turn influence the voting pattern in parliament.
Systems of Party Formation
Many political parties are guided by the formulated party policies contained in the particular party manifesto. They contain paradigms like ‘compulsory and free education for all’. Many parties try to formulate new laws or amend the existing ones so as to have better control of the country’s affairs.
The system of government influences the formation of political parties. Official political parties do not exist in a non partisan system and office holders are chosen on merit. In one party system only one political party is allowed to participate in elections and effective power. Small parties may exist at some level but these parties are legally required to acknowledge, abide and accept the leadership of the main dominant party. One party system tends to favour tyranny and dictatorship (Patomaki & Ulvila 2007).
Another system is that of the dominant party system. Opposition parties are accommodated legally in a democratic manner but they have chance of capturing power. These parties have a close, deep and tight connection with the masses and in many cases they are credited for one or a number of landmark changes. A classical example is the South African case where the dominant party is praised for fighting social segregation and apartheid.
The majority of the population follows it from those historical backgrounds. Another system is that of two party systems, this exists where two parties dominate the politics of a nation at times alternating terms of office. Political success outside the two parties is impossible. Multi party system is the system that does not have a dominant party and more than two parties can be represented in public offices through elections. This system result in coalitions as no single party garners a majority in an election most of the time.
Parties’ Identity and Funding
Parties though having their own policies are supposed to abide by the constitution of the country in context. Citizens, who have the voting power, are sometimes required to register as active members of a political party. This is sometimes demonstrated by issuing of membership cards.
Some parties have their designated colours and symbols which at times are printed on t-shirts and caps. Others use gestures like showing of two fingers as a sign of the party. Political parties are in many cases funded by the contributions of individual members and corporations while others are funded by international organizations that have common ideologies or stand to gain most from the party’s activities.
Conclusion
Political parties are important in the formation of any government. Opposition parties are important in regulating the ruling party keeping it in check and preventing tyranny. Parties have also ousted undesired governments and liberating people from suffering brought about by some tyrants. Parties provide a popular channel for the people to elect their desired office holders (Ingle 2008).
Reference List
Ingle, S. 2008. The British Party System: an introduction. Abingdon, Routledge.
Mair, P., Muller, C., & Plasser, F, eds.2004. Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets. London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Patomaki, S., & Ulvila, M.2007. Global Political Parties. Helsinki, Zed Books.
Schattschneider, E.1942. Party Government: American Government in Action. New York, Transaction Publisher.
Before the 1984 elections in Canada, there were only two major political parties, the Liberal Party and Progressive Conservative party. They competed in the traditional left/right-wing policy dimension space. There was a third small party the New Democratic Party on the left-wing.
Since New Democratic Party had weak electoral support, the political system qualified as two party-plus. Liberal party won most of the elections making it a natural government party. The factors that contributed to separation of Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada vary with the factors that contributed to their re-union.
Varying activities and political ideologies increased the need for Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party to separate in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Major factors were socio-economic and political. Re-union of these Parties was contributed by mainly political factors (short term) and a combination of economic, social and political factors (long term).
This paper seeks to establish factors that led to separation and re-union of Reform/Canadian Alliance Party and Progressive Conservatives. All the factors reflect contributions and their intensities to either separation or re-union of these parties.
Separation of Progressive Conservative Party
Reform Party separated from Progressive Conservative Party in 1987. It had its first elected Member of Parliament in a 1989 by-election. Deborah Gray was its first member of parliament elected in Beaver River in Alberta, Canada. This party represented interests of people from the western part of Canada (Manning, 1992).
French/English relationship and other immigrant’s variation in economic and social issues were the main contributing factors. The House of Commons had started portraying significant divisions against itself based on these pertinent issues in 1980s.
In its quest for leadership in Canadian politics, Progressive Conservative leader took the risk of alienating Western provinces and pursuing issue of Quebec‘s constitutional future in early 1980s. This greatly polarized the electorate and worked well for the PC. They won the elections and formed a government in 1982.
Western Canada lacked sufficient representation at the national level in the 1980s. Lack of representation led to favoritism of Mulroney’s Progressive government towards Québec. Most elites from the region believed that there was need for their own party to be heard nationally (Brimelow, 1986).
Politicians including Preston Manning, Francis Winspear and several others believed that there was need for institutional reforms in Canadian political system. This view was not shared by most of the leaders in Progressive Conservative party. Meech Lake Accord which proposed constitutional amendment did not meet the required level of Canadian Unity and requirements of the Westerners (Johnston et al. 1996).
It was negotiated by the federal government with ten provinces. The accord provided Quebec with a distinct society status. Nevertheless, it failed ratification in 1990. The failure of the accord led to formation of another political outfit Bloc Québécois in Quebec. Another accord was negotiated in 1992 but it was rejected again by population in a referendum.
In 1986 Canadians in Western Provinces thought that Progressive Conservative Party’s federal governments paid more attention to Quebec. Majority of the economic programs started by the Canadian government in 1980s where skewed towards benefiting Québec at the expense of Alberta and other western provinces.
Introduction of National Energy Program which was aimed at regulating energy prices, led to major economic losses in Alberta. There was visible unfairness in government procurement. Majority of government contracts were being awarded to companies in Québec. This was reflected in 1986 when the federal Progressive Conservative government contracted an unprepared company in Québec a contract. Since the contract involved construction of military aircrafts, it was worth a fortune.
The company was awarded the contract although another company in Winning, Manitoba was ready construct the CF-18 aircrafts. To Manning and other politicians from Western provinces, these events signified that both Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties governments favored Eastern Canada and mostly Québec.
Economic discrimination was evident according to Jenson and Phillips (1996). Westerners had not been given economic freedom to perform their roles. As disparities between immigrants and natives increased, some people thought the government was not fair especially in distribution of income from oil and gas export.
Government reduction in social spending was not given effective emphasis by the federal Progressive Conservative government in 1980s. Government’s funding of multicultural and bilingual social programs did not go well with Reforms party members. Business people and citizens required tax cuts since cost of running business and unemployment rates had gone up.
Even with the increase in unemployment rates and government deficits, Progressive Conservative governments did not reduce taxes. When the Reforms Party proposers started their desire, they received a lot of support from people who did not benefit from tax cuts especially in Western Canada.
Most of the people in Western Canada thought immigrants from Africa and Latin America benefited from their resources. Some even thought that they could do without Quebec which tolerated immigrants from India, Africa and Latin America. Most of these concerns where due to increased deficit in the federal government budget.
Government services being offered by Liberal and Progressive Conservative party had deteriorated over time. Privatization of government organizations was not done by Progressive Conservative government although they performed poorly. There was need for universal health care for all citizens. With the failing health care, the proponents of the reforms including Manning wanted a two-tier health insurance system (Manning, 1992). This would include both private and public insurance.
The issue of free trade was also a big factor that contributed to the separation of Progressive Conservative party. The Reformists from the western provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta thought that there was need for free trade among all Canadians. They wanted to engage in both domestic and international trade with the United States and other partners (Manning, 1992).
Various social related challenges emerged in the 1980s. Issues relating to aboriginal, gay/lesbian marriage, abortion and HIV threatened the well being of Westerners and other Canadians. The need for tight regulations on gay and lesbian marriage was frequently called by Reforms party members.
At some point, the spread of HIV was regarded as a disaster in the making. Since the Progressive Conservative Party government did not put much emphasis on theses social challenges, some of the Reforms/alliance members felt it was necessary to tackle them.
These social factors fueled the separation of Progressive Conservative Party. Preston Manning himself condemned homosexuality in public. However, some of the extreme views of the members of the separated Reforms were considered as individual rather than party positions.
In the early 1990s, the Reform Party realized that it had gained considerable support in most parts of the country. The extended support became an encouraging factor for it its members. They then changed it from a regional Party to a national one. Its expansion extended to most areas including Ontario. However, it still did not include Quebec in its expansion.
Reunion of Reform/Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party
After its inception, Reforms Party barely made impact in federal elections. In its three subsequent elections, it did not secure more than 20 % of the federal vote. The highest number of seats it won was 60 out of 301 in the House of Commons. The failure to appease a wide range of supporters in most provinces was mainly because of its extreme policies.
Before the 2000 federal elections, Reforms Party changed to Canadian Alliance Party and adopted moderate policies (Blais et al, 2002). The party also elected a new leader. However, it did not succeed to secure more votes. It increased to 66 seats while the other Right-wing Party, Progressive Conservative won only 12 seats.
The two parties realized that the only significant improvement would occur if they merged. After extensive negotiations they finally merged and formed Conservative Party of Canada in 2003. Various factors contributed to the historical merger of the two right-wing parties.
Long Term Factors
For the better part of 20th century, Liberal party won most elections in Canada. The only significant opposition was offered by the left wing Progressive Conservative party. The failed recognition of special status of Quebec in 1990s expanded political space to include constitutional rights of Quebec.
The partisan issue which influenced Canadian politics regenerated from its original one dimension to two dimensions. The policy space was on economic and regional dimensions. To remove a party in power, opposition can just wait for natural failure of the incumbent government. It may be caused by domestic or foreign policy (Schofield et al, 2003).
This is an unstable risk because incumbent party can regain power after the electorates weigh their preferences. The opposition can also identify an underlying issue and campaign for or against it. This is likely to polarize electorate into two opposing groups (Schofield et al, 2003).
If the polarization is high the ruling party can be easily broken or weakened. The western alienation and French-English relations has been such a factor in Canada. Success in uniting such groups could lead in more problems. However, if it succeeds, the party can become new natural governing party.
In the 2000 elections, Canadian Alliance Party and Bloc Québécois pro/anti-French issues were vital. However, the Reform/alliance supporters had moved to economic issues. At that same time, Progressive Conservatives had adopted an almost center policy. PC did not make recognizable gain in the elections because of its dept, leadership controversies, poor organization and troubled fundraising (Woolstencroft, 2001).
However, it captured 12% of the federal vote. Most voters in Canada are situated around the centre of economic and constitutional issues. This allowed the liberals to capture victory in the 2000 and majority of other federal elections. Anti-French driven sentiments mainly influenced the Reform/Alliance vote. Pro-French sentiments contributed to Quebec federal vote.
The results show that Reform/Alliance Party was not able to replace or absorb Progressive Conservative Party in 1990s. This is reflected in the average 12-20% share of PC every election year which was not enough to propel it to power. This particular percentage vote is what Reform/alliance party required to defeat Liberals in the elections.
Quebec guaranteed PC its votes because it could not accommodate the extreme views of the Reform/Alliance Party. Failures in 1997 and 2000 proved to both Progressive Conservative and Reform/Alliance parties that it would be practically impossible to beat Liberals without unity. The electoral goal played a significant factor in the ultimate merge of the two parties over their ideologies and policies.
Short term factors
Leadership change in both parties before the merger contributed to the success of reunion. There is a significant impact of change of leadership, dominant party faction and external benefits to the decision to merge parties (Harmel & Janda, 1994). During the period between 1990 and 2000, both parties pursued vote-seeking and policy-seeking goals.
Before 1993, Progressive Conservative was considered one of the two major federal parties in Canada. However, it had not been characterized by strong ideological values (Bernard 1996). It’s primarily goal was vote-maximizing. In the 1990s the party changed its goal to policy advocacy.
On the other hand, Reform/Alliance started with policy-seeking goal and later shifted to vote-seeking before the 2000 elections. After its formation, the party did well in representing its main policies. It could not achieve its policy-seeking since it never gained the significant votes to ascend to power.
Subsequently, the right-wing policy was not carried out. After the 1997 elections, the party launched the United Alternative campaign strategy. This showed a shift in party’s ultimate goal towards vote-seeking. This was followed by change of Party name to Canadian Alliance, election of a new leader and adoption of moderate policies in preparation for the 2000 federal elections.
This did not put off the Progressive Conservatives. The party’s success was insignificant. The Alliance Party and its new leader Stephen Harper remained with one option; to form a merger with the Progressive conservative Party. The Reform/Alliance had to sacrifice its ideological goal to succeed electorally.
On the other hand, Progressive Conservatives were not interested in the merger. According to Harme and Janda (1994), external shock to a party is usually the main trigger for party change. The 1993 election defeat acted as the necessary external shock. Its seats reduced from majority to only two in the House of Commons while the national share dropped from 43% to 16.
The party ran out of options because of the Liberals on the other side and Quebec’s deal on the other side. They could not play regional alienation because it had lost its credibility on the Meech Lake and subsequent constitutional accords. The Progressive Conservative faced a dead end because liberals occupied the traditional governing while Reform/Alliance and Bloc had the regional support.
It had the only option of forming an alliance with the Reform/alliance party or face extinction. PC leader Joe Clark opted for none of the options. He opposed to the merger because he wanted to deny his competitors opportunities in its stronghold. He wanted to preserve identity of the Party and defend his pride as a leader.
After a lot of in-party fighting, Orchard a close ally of PC leader Joe Clark retired to give room for MacKay’s leadership. He agreed to retire after MacKay pledged not to merge with Reform/Alliance. The party leaders who included five provincial Premiers, a former Ontario Premier and Brian Mulroney applied a lot of pressure on the new leader to form alliance. The leader finally broke his promise and formed the alliance in 2003. Organizational and leadership change played a key role in the merger (Harmel & Janda, 1994).
Works Cited
Bernard, André. “Liberals and Conservatives in the 1990s.” Canadian Parties in Transition. Ed. Brian Tanguay and Alain-G. Gagnon. Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1996. 73-88. Print.
Blais, André, Elisabeth Gidengil, Richard Nadeau, and Neil Nevitte. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough: Broadview Press. 2002. Print.
Brimelow, Peter. The Patriot Game. Toronto: Porter Books, 1986.Print.
Harmel, Robert, and Janda, Kenneth. “An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (1994): 259-287. Print.
Johnston, Richard, André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. The challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996. Print.
Jenson, Jane and Susan Phillips. “Regime Shift: New Citizenship Practices in Canada.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 14 (1996):111–35. Print.
Manning, Preston. The New Canada. Canada: Macmillan, 1992. P167. Print.
Schofield, Norman, Gary Miller, and Andrew Martin. “Critical Elections and Political Realignment in America: 1860-2000.” Political Studies 51 (2003): 217-240. Print.
Woolstencroft, Peter. “Some Battles Won, War Lost: The Campaign of the Progressive Conservative Party.” In Jon H. Pammett and Christopher Dornan. 2001. Print
Political parties in Canada play a central role in Canadian governance and democracy; it is a critical link between the state and the society. According to the Canada Elections Act, a political party is “an organization with a fundamental purpose of participating in the public affairs through the endorsement of one of its members as a candidate to vie in an election exercise” (Thorburn 389).
A political party in Canada should fulfill some set conditions, for example; it should nominate a candidate in at least one electoral district, and it should have at least 250 members or electors (Thorburn 389).
Conservatives and the liberals dominate the political system in Canada hence Canada is a multiparty state. The dominance that has been enjoyed by the liberals and the conservatives has been eroded by the emergence of other political parties, which have taken regional lines and are defined by their policies and ideologies.
Canadian Political Parties System
Canadian political parties are not representative, and they do not wholly represent the members of political parties. This is because only a small population of Canadians forms membership of political parties.
Canadian states and society are home to various ethnic groups, races and people of diverse background hence political parties that seek to acquire political power have no choice but to allow themselves to be governed and guided by the social diversity and to establish representation between these various groups and interests. Political parties are responsible for maintaining the strength of unity and diversity of the country.
Canadian political system lacks an organized and a centralized authority, and they are devoid of permanent members. These political parties are run as franchise-style organizations where a team of activists and parochially oriented party organizations of volunteers run their own affairs. The parties are not representative of the interest of the citizens because they are driven by parochial interests of religious or ethnic nature.
The inclusiveness of political parties does not extend to nomination of candidates to political parties. Political parties in Canada have been overtly monopolized by a clique of people (Thorburn 370).
The party system in Canada has always been questionable because the voters do not identify with the existing political parties. This has led to the decline in voter turnout during elections. This is the reason why the Canadian Alliance, the Canadian Action Party and others have called for the increase in the participation of all the citizens in the political activities of political parties.
Parliamentary caucus of the political parties has been considered as unrepresentative of the whole nation not even the representative of their own voters. Political parties have always been fragmented. Parties have been formed to represent the interests of particular group or region of the country (Canadian Encyclopedia 1).
The Canadian political parties have not been effective in the study and articulation of political parties and do not provide the voters with a meaningful chance to participate in the decision-making process. The political parties have only been regarded as electoral machines but do not have any role on policy development.
Conclusion
Political parties should be representative of the citizens and not only to the activist base. Canadian political parties have only been responding to and representative of special-interest groups. Canadian parties can only be inclusive if they serve the interests of the people and through their elected representatives.
Political parties play an important role in the political system of the world today. They play the role of bringing together people with similar political positions and interests. Through political parties, the power game in politics is executed because for one to become a political leader, the channel is via a political party.
Similarly, in most cases, voting by the elector is usually based on ideologies that are shared by a political party and not necessarily the individual contesting for a position. Usually there are two major political parties in any election contest in a two party system and the presence of third parties only has some effect on the entire process but can never win an election.
There has been substantial development of political parties with change in era and time. This paper highlights some of these developments with a detailed look at some of the major political parties of the world today and their policies on foreign affairs, economy and balancing of the budget.
It also touches on the role that third parties play and the impact they have to the political system. To support this, the focus will be on the political system and political parties of the US.
In the United States, the two major political parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The third parties in the US are several and the three major third parties include constitution Party, Green Party, and the Libertarian Party (Crane , 12).
Currently in the US, the federal government is administered by the Democratic Party with Mr. Obama as the president and head of state. The party shares several ideologies and beliefs of social liberalism.
It has ever supported minority groups that include farmers, labor workers and minority religions and minority ethnic groups. Most people of black American descent and Latino Americans share the same positions and interests with the party’s and therefore a huge number of them belong to the party.
The party also opposes ideas that create unregulated business operations in the US. They have sponsored several bills in the senate that supports increase in minimum wages.
The 2007 Fair Minimum Wage Act is one of the bills that have been supported by democrats and passed. The Democratic Party believes in a structured tax system that reduces inequality in the economy (Grigsby , 106). The republicans during the Bush regime, created cuts in taxation for rich and wealthy Americans including the middle class.
But to create equality and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, the Obama administration has allowed tax cuts for the rich to expire so that they pay more tax. At the same time taxation cuts for the middle class has been allowed to continue.
There is a general support for more budgetary allocation to departments of social services such as health care, and welfare programs. Removing these services from American citizens is like bringing social injustice.
Attempts by the Republicans to remove these services were strongly opposed by the members of the Democratic Party (Thompson and Hickey , 89). If the government provides these services to the citizens, it creates an opportunity of freedom to everyone.
The PAYGO rule of budget was actually reinstated after a move by the democrats to push for its reinstatement. Democrats also have a liberal and progressive stand on issues to do with the environment, trade, education, the rights of the gay community, and research on embryonic stem cell.
Their foreign policy is based on internationalism of which intervention is permitted. They supported the use of military intervention in order to fight terrorism and bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
But in the recent past the president has opposed further involvement of the military in Afghanistan calling for a surge of the troops. There is however area where both Democrats and Republicans speak in one voice. This is the issue of Israel in the Middle East region.
The Republican Party on the other hand has a conservative nature of ideologies and principles. On the economy, they believe that capitalism and free market contribute greatly towards building the economy (Gienapp , 56).
To them the role of assisting the poor should be the responsibility of the private sector and not the government. And therefore they do not support government funding of social services such as health care and education.
On international policies, the republicans have always been in support of military intervention to bring stability within a region. It was during a republican regime that there have been most wars that the US military has involved itself in. The republicans also form the majority of the people in the US military.
The US has a two party political system with democrats and republicans being the main one. However there are other third parties that usually only play the role of a spoiler during elections (Thompson and Hickey , 67).
Candidates from these parties rarely do win elections and at the moment there have only been two senators from third parties who have won election since 1990. Whenever there are big issues that are overlooked by the two big parties, they can cause and force attention in these issues.
Works Cited
Crane, Michael. The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics . New York: McGraw Hill, 2004.
Gienapp, William. The Origins of the Republican Party. New York: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Grigsby, Ellen. Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Florence: Cengage Learning, 2008.
Thompson, William and Joseph Hickey. Society in Focus. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
The Whig Party was one of the political parties in the U.S. that was formed during the Jacksonian period of democracy that was from the early 1830s to the mid 1850s. The name Whig was chosen in honor of a group referred to as American Whigs formed in 1776 to fight for the country’s independence. People who wore Whigs during that time were seen to oppose any tyranny and dictatorship.
The Political ideology of the Whig Party was to support the supremacy of Congress over that of presidency in the United States. The party also focused on political ideologies that were centered on modernization and economic protectionism (Mueller 11)
The Whigs, who were modernizers and supporters of President Jefferson’s democracy, saw President Andrew Jackson as a threat to the modernization of the economic, social and political forces in the country during that time.
This parricular Party drew its political principles from the Jeffersonian democratic system that mostly centered on national unity, concession, a balance in regime control and support of the country’s transport network. The Whig party served to dissuade the Jacksonian Democrats who supported the governance and political ideologies of President Jackson (Mueller 12).
One of the founders of the Party was Henry Clay who came up with the American system, a concept that promotes the rapid industrialization and economic growth of America during the Jacksonian era. The Whig party demanded the government’s support so that it could create a modern economy that was market oriented.
This economy would see the skills and expertise of workers being utilized more than their physical strength. Bank credit and bank services would count more than land ownership or the ownership of assets. The party sought to increase industrialization in the country by proposing a business oriented money supply that was based on the national bank and a program that would see the road network facing major renovations and improvements.
Political Ideology of the Jacksonian Democrats
The Jacksonian democrats were viewed to be a political philosophy of President Jackson and his democrat supporters who followed Jackson’s policies after the era of President Jefferson’s democracy. The term Jacksonian democracy was derived from President Jackson’s equal political policy that emerged from the Jeffersonian democracy that was mostly characterized by a monopoly of the government.
The political ideology that underlined the Jacksonian democrats was to support the presidency and its executive branch rather than support the Congress. The Jacksonian democracy also sought to broaden the public’s participation in the government’s activities by involving American citizens in voting and decision making exercises (Pearson 176).
The Jacksonian democracy was built on certain political principles that included manifested destinies where Americans were destined to settle and expand their control from the Atlantic to the Pacific region of America, expanded suffrage where voting rights were extended to white men, banking where Jacksonian’s opposed the monopoly the government had on the national, federal and central bank, patronage where political supporters were placed in appointed offices, strict constructionism where Jacksonian democrats favored a federal government that had limited powers and an economy that incorporated a hands off approach (Pearson 178).
The policies that were implemented by President Jackson were based on the political principles highlighted above. These policies saw the role of the national bank being terminated in the U.S. and there was a broadening of citizenry in the government.
President Jackson also implemented policies that saw the country expanding its boundaries westward and removing the American Indian communities from the Southeastern parts of the country. These policies saw the president being labeled as a tyrant and dictator by the Republicans who came to form the Whig Party (Pearson 178).
Jacksonian Democracy Era
The Jacksonian era began when President Jackson lost his presidential election in 1824 to Republican John Quincy Adams who was one of the founders of the Whig Party. During this time President Jackson used the Democratic Party to launch his campaign bid for the 1828 elections by focusing on issues such property qualifications for officeholders where most U.S. offices elected state representatives rather than appointed them.
Jackson also focused on voting issues that arose during the election campaigns where opponents were involved in smear campaigns, forgetting the pertinent issues that needed their address. A new party system was developed to deal with the high competition amongst presidential opponents but these new system required a lot of financial resources, people and organizations to run the campaigns and ensure that American citizens voted in the elections.
Jacksonian Democrats believed in the strength of the common man and they did this by trying to protect the American Constitution and ensuring that there was political democracy in the country. The Jacksonians also advocated for the individual liberty of white males on suffrage and also for the economic equality of the average and low income American citizen (Johnson par.6). On entering political office, President Jackson protected the contents of the U.S.
Constitution despite the fact he was protecting his presidency. He mostly advocated for the freedom of the states from any federal laws that infringed on the rights of the state’s citizens. President Jackson ensured the edifice of the constitution when he barred in the Congress a vital internal enhancement bill that would refute federal funding for the building of the Maysville Road found in Kentucky (Johnson par.2).
President Jackson who was a firm believer in the common man used these issues to gain more votes that would see him securing the presidency in 1828. His Jacksonian supporters included both rich and poor American citizens, and people who practiced slavery and those who called for the abolition of slavery.
Jackson promised his supporters economic freedom as well as ensuring that the average American had a say on how the government’s affairs would be performed. Such policies saw an increase of respect and empowerment of the common man in the United States. The Jacksonian democracy mostly centered on the presidency rather than the congress, a concept that saw President Jackson utilizing the Union to negotiate for trade agreements with Britain and France.
The democracy under President Jackson also focused on the nullification of federal laws that were used to govern the states by proposing that each state have its own laws and rights for its citizens without invoking the use of the Civil Union. President Jackson also advocated for the unification of the Northern and Southern parts of America to form one state so that citizens could move from one region to another without any form of hindrance or obstruction.
The Jacksonian democracy also saw the reduction of high tariffs that had been imposed on imported goods by the Jeffersonian democracy to a lower rate. President Jackson lowered the tariff rate for South Carolina who had called for a nullification of the tariff rates. The actions indicated that he stood by the federal authorities that had been outlined in the constitution that stopped federal states from asserting whichever rights had not been approved (Johnson par.2).
A notable achievement of the Jacksonian democracy was the two party system where the needs of the common man could be met and their opinions input into government policies that were developed to serve the interest of the average American citizen.
This system was also preferable as each party had to compete for public support by meeting their needs and opinions. The Jacksonian era was seen to be the birth of the modern day Democratic Party in the United States. The Jacksonian era also protected the individual liberties of the average white male who had an entitlement to a position of power and authority in the government.
Jacksonian democrats were also guardians of economic equality amongst American citizens. When President Jackson eliminated the national and central banks, he did so because he thought these banks benefited the rich classes in the American society (Johnson par.5).
Eliminating the federal and central/national banks in America during that time saw economic equality amongst average American citizens and the lower class citizens as the economic privileges taken away from the wealthy class were allocated to these citizens. This period of economic equality and stability saw a decrease in poverty levels as well as a stable economy in America during the 1820s and 1830s.
Works Cited
Johnson, Cory. Flaws of Jacksonian democracy. 12 August 2008. Web.
Mueller, Henry R. The Whig party in Pennsylvania. New York: Read Books, 2009.
Pearson, Charles, M. A history of American political theories. New Jersey, US: Transaction Publishers, 2008. Print.
This “Issue Stance” paper presents facts to explain how the Tea Party has consistently ruined the Republican Party. In 2002, Charles Koch and David Koch established the Tea Party Movement thus changing the landscape of American politics.
The party became popular after the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commissions case when the Supreme Court made a ruling that gave corporations numerous liberties and rights (CNN, 2012). The ruling declared that corporations were more or less like “people”. The ruling encouraged American companies and billionaires to spend their wealth in order to influence the outcome of the country’s elections.
In 2010, it was evident that “the Republicans were desperate thus tempted by the members of the Tea Party to shift to the right (CNN, 2012)”. This happened because the Republications were after electoral gains. However, what they did not know was that such gains would affect the party in the future. At the time, the Republicans did not predict was that the “rightist idea” would eventually cost the party.
The decision-makers only considered the importance of new votes in order to win an election. They did so without considering the values, views, and expectations of its current voters and party members (Skocpol & Williamson, 2013). The consideration and decision would have negative impacts on the functions of the Republican Party.
After the establishment of the Tea Movement, billionaires and business owners provided finances to energize the Republican Party. However, the saddening outcome was that the party would accept defeat in 2008. After the election, the conservatives were troubled after their candidate, John McCain, lost the presidential seat. At the same time, George Bush was receiving dismal ratings from the electorate.
This new outcome would have great implications on the future of the Republican Party (CNN, 2012). It was after the election when Tea Party leaders and activists began to inject some ideas and life into the Republican Party grass roots. “The move helped bring out the voters who were greatly frustrated with the changing status quo in the politics of the United States (CNN, 2012)”.
The Tea Party activists were on the forefront to push the Republicans to focus on different issues that would alter the decision-making processes in the two houses. For instance, “the activists forced the Republican Party to address issues such as government spending and deficit reduction (Skocpol & Williamson, 2013)”.
The party leaders also created much pressure on the leadership of the Congress. Consequently, the situation put the president, Barrack Obama, on the defensive. The changing political platform would eventually have numerous impacts on the future position of the Republican Party.
It has become evident that the Tea Party has eventually ruined the position of the Republic Party. Between 2010 and 2012, the Tea Party knocked out some prominent and powerful Republican politicians. This means that the Tea Party is presently in control of the Senate.
Political analysts believe strongly such Republican candidates and powerful political would have won in the elections and form a majority in the Senate (CNN, 2012). This becomes one of the major losses for the Republican Party in the recent past.
It is notable that the Tea Party has led to the demise of the Republican Party. In 2010, for example, it was reported that O’Donnell Christine of the Tea Party defeated a Republican by the name Michael Castle in the Republican primary. As well, political analysts and theorists believe that Castle would have won the Senatorial seat. As a result, O’Donnell was unable to win the seat and instead the Democrats captured it.
This is a classical example of how the Tea Party continues to kill the Republican Party. In 2012, Richard Lugar, a powerhouse Senator from Indiana lost to Murdock Richard after uttering explosive suggestions and comments about the issue abortion (Skocpol & Williamson, 2013).
The comments forced many people to believe that the Republicans were “far rightists”. This explains why the party was unable to recapture the Indiana senatorial seat.
In 2011, the tea party activists (also Republican leaders) made it impossible for the Republican Party to sign off on the popular “grand bargain” about government spending and taxes. This “grand bargain” amounted to 4 trillion US dollars. At the time, the Republican leaders were unable to submit to Barrack Obama on the issues affecting the country.
The republicans gambled that the citizens of America would consider a Republican president in 2012 elections. With such mindset, the Republicans were optimistic that they were going to have free control and rein thus dictating the future of the “grand bargain”. The sad news is that is what just a dream.
It is clear that things have turned out differently than it was expected. Instead, the Republican Party does not have its original control over the Senate or the White House. This means that the party faces the possibility of increased taxes thus affecting the lives of the American taxpayer (CNN, 2012).
The Republican Party will widen cuts in the country’s defense budget unless new measures are undertaken (Kabaservice, 2012). The situation indicates that the conservatives will experience increased reductions on the country’s defense spending. This will definitely not be acceptable to many Republicans.
After the 2012 election, it has become evident that Obama is primarily the driving force. The Republicans have subsequently taken a raw choice from their current position (CNN, 2012). According to Kabaservice (2012), the Tea Party continues to undermine the Republicans’ capabilities and efforts to position their ideas. This has made Republican Party the choice of extremists and not of governance.
The Tea Party activists are influential and form part of the party’s dynamics. This explains why the Tea Party continues to make it impossible for the Republicans to establish a sustainable coalition that can influence the political landscape of the United States.
It is notable that the Tea Party has influenced the positions of many Republicans than ever before. The Republican Party is presently moving further to the right. This is what has led to dysfunctional position of American politics. The Tea Party continues to make it hard for Republicans to control the major voting blocs that might play a significant role towards the party’s victory in 2016 (CNN, 2013).
From the above points, it is evident that the Tea Party currently controls the affairs, positions, and future of the Republican Party. This has definitely ruined the party thus making it an extremist group that does not fulfill the needs of the citizens. Today we have the Democrats controlling most of the Republican States. The Republican Party leaders should do something in order to reverse the situation and bring back the party’s glory.
Reference List
CNN (United States). (2012, December 18). What the Tea Party Cost the GOP [Television broadcast]. In CNN Global News View. United States: Cable Network News.
Kabaservice, G. (2012). The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skocpol, T. & Williamson, V. (2013). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Political parties have existed in the United States since its formation. However, the public have been viewing them negatively due to the many ills that they have been associated with.
Such disdain goes back to the days of the tenure of George Washington, who warned that parties were filling the U.S. citizens with jealousies that were ill-founded. Despite this negative image that political parties have, they play a vital role in the political system of the U.S. This paper is an investigation of the positive roles that political parties play in the political system of the United States.
If political parties were not part of the political system of the U.S., citizens would have to go through cumbersome elections. It is common knowledge that parties are the ones that select candidates for some elective positions. This helps in making elections less involving because voters would indubitably be overwhelmed by elections if the people vying for elective offices had no party labels.
For instance, if parties were not there, citizens would probably have to vote for the vice president and other posts in the government. This would complicate the electoral process. In addition to this, parties usually present voters with policy alternatives. This is especially helpful for voters because they may not know candidates individually. There have been cases of straight tickets being chosen by voters. That is, voters choose party representatives during the elections rather than the candidates themselves.
Parties have also played a critical role in checking the excesses of reigning parties. If a party is not the majority party in Congress, then it ensures that the other party does not have complete control. Party leaders have often come out openly against measures implemented by a president elected by the other party.
This role of parties has been widely criticized by American citizens because many of them view it as self-serving and petty. It is however an important role because it ensures that the reigning party does not change the law or implement contentious policies at will.
Members of a given political party share their stands on certain issues of public concern. In general, these stands are not the same for the main political parties, Republicans and Democrats. This therefore implies that when Republicans win the Presidential election, Democrats criticize their points of view on certain issues.
On the other hand, if Democrats win the Presidential election, Republicans criticize their points of view on certain issues in their turn. For instance, the Republican Party has taken a tough stance on the issue of same sex marriages while Democrats have been liberal on the issue. The discussions that follow the aforementioned criticisms make citizens well-informed about pertinent issues. The criticizing is also important because it presents the government with alternative problem solving methods.
Despite the fact that political parties have been bedeviled in the past, they are important components of the American political system. Among the key functions of political parties is the fact that they help in simplifying elections.
Political parties also play an important role in checking the excesses of the government and ensuring that the government does not change the law or implement contentious policies at will. Lastly, political parties criticize the actions of the ruling elite and thereby ensure that members of the public are adequately informed about pertinent issues.
Judicial role both activism and restrains, and public opinion can be both dependent and independent in relation to supreme courts decisions. Judges have a role to decide on the case as regards the rule of law. However, their role is sometimes perceived as partisan by the public. The public will see the passing of some judgment as being biased to favor a certain side especially when it is a case regarding the executives. Judicial activism and restrain are sometimes dependent on public opinion and may not be so much obliged to follow the law.
That is why a complex case will be settled by more than one judge. In any case, there is an opinion from the public on how it should be judged. On the other hand, there is the actual interpretation of the law that should be followed in deciding the law. This is most instances ties the judge in making a decision. An example is a case involving the United States presidential election in which there was a dispute over the Florida votes between Al Gore and George Bush. This was considered as a litmus test in the judiciary since there were two strong public opinions on who had won the race with supporters of both presidential candidates holding different opinions.
The panel of judges in the high court overturned the earlier ruling of the Florida court which had reordered the recount of the votes. This shows how the judicial role and public opinion can be dependent and at the same time independent. If the two courts were applying the same law, why did they give a different ruling on the case? Sometimes judges are influenced by public opinions to make a ruling and a times judges restrain from following the public opinion in making a ruling. (Kenneth, 2000)
Influence of partisan politics on the congress
Partisan politics have not only been witnessed in the US courts but also greatly influences the work of congress. Because it has to handle a wide range of subjects, the US congress is divided into committees each dealing with a different issue. There are more than 20 standing committees in the US congress. These committees deal with a specific subject of concern and do not leave politics out of their work. Partisan politics has a lot of influence on these committees. They influence policies made by individual members of the house. There is a lot of lobbying in voting for different issues that have to pass in each committee. This has some positive and negative effects on the working of the committees. But it has an advantage that any member can influence others and help to pass a policy that would have otherwise failed.
But his influence of partisan politics in these committees works against the good of the people when committee members take sides with their party of affiliation even on a matter that requires logical reasoning. In voting for the war in Iraq, many members took partisan politics and voted for the wish of their parties without having a good reason to support their votes. We can all see what it has brought to the American people. (Mebane and Sekhon, 2002)
Partisan politics is good if committee members gangs up to vote for an issue that will help the people that they represent. But this is not the case in most committees. Many members take side with the side they are sure that they will get a favor. They gang up with others when they know that they will gain by helping their fellow members to pass the issue. Party partisan has both negative and positive effects on the working of the committees depending on the issue at hand.
References
Kenneth, A. (2000). Assessing comparative legislative research. Michigan University Press.
Mebane, W. & Sekhon, J. (2002). Coordination and policy moderation at midterm. American Political Science Review, Vol. 96(1): 142-158.