CKNW Editorial
for March 1, 2001

Let me make the case for a republican style government as it relates to the actual running of a government. But first let's look at what we do.

Our cabinet, by custom, is appointed by the premier or prime minister from the members of the government caucus, Many considerations go into the appointment the very least of which is the competence of the person for the job. There are regional considerations and considerations of race, religion, left, right and so on. One thing that is notably lacking is any caucus input into the process or any parliamentary constraints. The prime minister or premier does just as he wishes. The strong argument for this system is that cabinet members are constantly under the scrutiny of parliament, can be asked questions in question period and can be asked to appear before parliamentary committees. The problem is that question period has become and always will be a place where the opposition tends, from time constraints if nothing else, to concentrate on the big guns like the leader or the minister who for the moment is flavour of the month and ignore the rest. Commons Committees can ask ministers to appear befoifre them but the minister needn’t do so. Since the Committee is controlled by the government, is chaired by a government member satisfactory to the prime minister, which chair decides the agenda, there is not much chance of of a cabinet minister facing any awkward questions. The control the commons or the legislature has over the cabinet is virtually nil.

In the republican system the powers of governance are divided between the legislative arm, Congress, and the administrative arm, the president and his cabinet. The legislature has the power of the purse and the sole right to pass legislation while the president gets to select the cabinet and senior officials in his administration. By custom – and I believe law - these people are not members of Congress. It is said that this is undemocratic.

But on closer inspection it turns out that the American system is not only more efficient but is demonstrably more accountable to the people.
First off, while the president has all the concerns a prime minister has about region, race, etc he can pick from a huge pool of talent, not just from a limited number of elected parliamentarians. This doesn't mean he always gets good people but I would submit that if you look at the major
portfolios in the US over the past 20 years, whether you agree with their politics or not, they have gone to very able people indeed. Moreover, because of the legislative involvement, the public gets to learn a great deal about the minister and not just the nice touchy-feely stuff the PR flacks dish out.

But here is where the democracy comes in - all these appointments have to be approved by the Senate. (I pause to observe I would not suggest that our senate, as currently constituted, would be appropriate for this power but the Commons would,) This has both a before and after cleansing effect. The president knows beforehand that he must choose carefully and if he doesn't, the politicians will not confirm his appointment. In practice, most appointments are confirmed because of this.
But Congress has two other enormous powers.

While there is no Question Period there is the congressional committee which might be of the House of Representatives, the Senate or a joint committee. These committees have the power of subpoena and don't hesitate to let that be known and indeed use it. Moreover, because there is so much less party discipline in Congress than there is in parliament (because the government doesn't, of course, fall on a lost vote) the Congressional Committee is the very opposite of toothless and sycophantic towards the administration.

But there is yet another power which is not often used because it's presence is enough to ensure it needn't be - the power of impeachment. If an official - including a federal judge, by the way - strays form the path of righteousness too far he can be impeached. There have been only three serious impeachment efforts of a president but many of lesser officials.

A higher quality of minister, a parliamentary review before appointment and a parliamentary right to quiz the minister and indeed vote him out of office - does anyone really believe that our system is more democratic than that below the line?

I don't.