i wish the u.s. had the option of a “no confidence vote”. I love it. you fuck up badly enough, you’re out.

ooops, my ignorance is showing. i wish i’d paid more attention in my high school civics class (sorry, mr. micelli, i know you tried!), because despite living in canada for two years, and here in the u.k. for almost three, i know very little about commonwealth-style politics, aside from the most rudimentary grasp of parliament. luckily, the canadian government has put helpfully put together a little document called “How Canadians govern themselves”, just for donderheads like me. long story short: there’s the house of commons, which is elected by the public, the senate (or in the u.k., the house of lords) which is appointed (and to be perfectly honest, i still don’t fully understand their role [though j assures me it's the same legislative role as the u.s. senate], particularly where in the u.k. the house of lords are members of nobility, i.e. inherited), and the prime minister and cabinet are the people chosen by the (usually) majority party to lead. there’s are three federal parties and there are no term limits, therefore when people want a change, they don’t have to wait another 3 years or pray for an assassination.

(at this point, i am going to deftly sidestep the whole “monarchy” part of the constitutional monarchy, except to say that it seems people really love tradition [this also goes a long way towards explaining the queen's christmas speech, btw.] if you want to know more about where those strange and fascinating royals fit into today’s government, you can read about it here.)

but the thing that i particularly love about the parliamentary system, is that it’s so responsive and accountable to the people. politicians don’t get to rest on their laurels, just because they may happen to be part of the majority party – they’re constantly being called to account from all sides. there are no guarantees, because they can be tossed out on their ear at any moment. it’s hard to draw a line in the sand, or try to make your party look better by emphasising contrasts, because there’s always a spoiler on the sidelines. that third party is so important in keeping the balance, because it means neither side can go to extremes or stray too far from the center without risking political viability. some would say it’s more wishy-washy, but there’s less chance of polarisation, and a far greater need to listen carefully to public opinion.

what a stark contrast to the u.s. – where the parties try to create their definition through opposition, where spiteful entrenchment is the name of the game, and where, as a result, there are precious few opportunities to implement real change. every politician worries so much about losing ground to the “other party”, they never stop to examine what the public actually like about the other side. the prevailing attitude is a “my way or the highway” stubbornness which creates division so deep that either a) two sides of country are fighting at each other through the polls antagonistically rather than making a collective decision, or, more and more worryingly b) becoming so disillusioned and disgusted that they can’t stomach taking part in the electoral process, leaving the government to run amok without a true sense of direction.

i truly believe that what the u.s. needs is a viable third party to snap people back to reality. can you tell i voted for nader? because i wonder what the outcome of a “no confidence vote” in bush would be if we took a poll today?

actually, i don’t really wonder at all.

Like this post

Unlike

politics, canada, u.s., government, parliament, "no confidence"