Introduction
In more than one way, Canadian political culture resembles the European and North American political culture in that it emphasizes the freedom of religion, personal liberty, constitutional law, and regional autonomy (Alston et al.1997). These political concepts are not innate to Canada but stems in various degrees from the French civil law traditions, the British common law, the English civic traditions, and the North American aboriginal government. Just like in America, peace, order, and good governance are the objectified goals of the Canadian government. The Canadian political culture is characterized by a strong tradition of tolerance, compromise, and loyalty. There is no time in history where Canadian politics have undergone swift, revolutionary changes. Infact, the political landscape of Canada have slowly changed through the various stages, necessitated by the interested parties, the government of the day, and regional consultations (Cummins & Christopher, 2005).
Liberalism, a concept borrowed particularly from the United States has also been deeply entrenched in the Canadian political landscape. As demonstrated by the support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individual rights have risen to the front position of legal and political importance for most Canadians. The Canadian political scene now allows for women rights, liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, a relatively free economy, and other egalitarian considerations. Nowadays, the Canadian political culture boasts of a great sense of collective responsibility as demonstrated by the general support of the universal care, foreign control, as well as gun control social programs (Gershenfeld, 2007)
However, as already mentioned, many of the concepts that the Canadians have internalized in the political culture are foreign, and many have been influenced by the United States (US) and its close proximity to Canada. Precisely put, the Canadian political landscape has been Americanized. This Americanization is perceived warmly by right-wing political heavyweights, while being carried with a lot of contempt by the left-wing political conduits. The left-wingers argue that Americanization has left Canadians with no image of their own as they are unable to separate themselves from the Americans. Infact, Canadian prime minister, bending to pressure from the perceived Americanization of Canada proposed a creation of a sub-ministerial cabinet position with the title of Canadian identity in January 2007 (Mattaine, 2008)
But what is Americanization? Plainly put, it is the process through which people and cultures are assimilated into the American culture. In respect to this paper, the Canadian political culture has been assimilated by the political landscape of their American neighbors. To many Canadians, this is uncomfortable as it makes many to view themselves as part of a larger American national family. Some political analysts believe that Canada’s close proximity to the US is causing many Canadians to acquire or conform to American political culture. The term political culture is used in this paper to refer to a sum of expectations, beliefs, and attitudes constituting particular orientations towards the Canadian society in general and Canadian politics in particular (Gershenfeld, 2007).
Background of Americanization of Canadian politics
To start with, it should be noted that the US and Canada are two nations with their own diverse cultures and heritages dating back to many years ago. But the two also share many similarities, thereby strengthening the bilateral relations of the two countries. In the course of history, some Canadian prime ministers such as Sir Robert Borden, Pierre Trudeau, John Diefenbaker, and Sir John Macdonald have struggled to reasonably distance the political culture of Canada from the United States to focus on its own self-sufficiency while preserving good relations (Mattaine, 2008). But others such Brian Mulroney, Louis St. Laurent, and Sir Wilfred Laurier have attempted to integrate Canadians and the Americans both at the political and economic levels so as to enlarge markets. The two lines of arguments have had their successes and drawbacks, with the Canadian people getting worried about too much integration while at the same time trying to avoid the straining of US-Canada relations (Heath & Vasquez, 2001).
Canada’s open immigration policy and its large geographic size have led to a tremendous diverse society, including a large set of immigrants and First Nations from the US, Asia, Europe, the Caribbean, as well the free blacks who arrived from the US before 1860. Its diversity can also be attributed to periods it was under the rule of the British and the French, and also on the two wars it has fought with the US – the war of 1812 and the American Revolution (Mattaine, 2008).
In modern times, Canada as a country is defined through its government policies, which are often thought to contain deeper cultural values. But no amount of denial by anyone can erase the fact that these historical linkages have contributed largely to the present day Americanization of Canadian political culture. According to a political philosopher by the name of Charles Blattberg, Canada today can only be conceived as political community containing many other communities within it. Not only does this political community include ethnic, religious, regional, civic, and civil associational communities, but it also includes national communities. Therefore, Canada is seen as a multi-national country, consisting of at least four nations within it: The US Canadians, the Aboriginal nations, The English Canada, and the Francophone Canadians (Gershenfeld, 2007).
The above formed the basis of Americanization of the Canadian political culture. Perhaps another fundamental background of Americanization comes from various Canadian political parties. There is a diverse range of reaction to the US amongst individual members of the political parties within the Canadian political setup. This has its basis in the early 20th Century when the Canadian conservatives depicted themselves as loyal to the empire and hostile to the hazardous American takeovers. This made them to decisively win the 1911 elections. But in World War II, Liberal William Mackenzie developed close relationship with the US under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1957-63, John Diefenbaker, a Canadian conservative defiantly took an anti-American position in defense issues. The Vietnam War of the 1960s widened the political differences between the two neighbors, thereby making Pierre Trudeau to take political advantage by moving the Liberals to a more anti-American position (Mattaine, 2008)
This political machination of the 1960’s still commands a resounding influence in the political landscape of Canada in recent years. The left-wingers, particularly the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada have tended to back a more distant relationship with the US, particularly when the conservatives are in office in Washington D.C. In their minds, they view Americanization as counterproductive to the interests and aspirations of the Canadian people.
The extent and Implications of Americanization on the Canadian political culture
There are those who argue that the concept of Americanization of Canada is just a construct of the mind that cannot be justified in whatever terms. But to others, this Americanization is real and disturbing as it is threatening to dilute the Canadian identity. In the political scene, the term Americanization is frequently used by officials of the Canadian political wing, including the New Democrats and the Liberals to refer to the policies that they don’t like. For example, the government came up with a two-tier or private healthcare but people not in favor with the system simply described it as an American-style healthcare in political circles. The two-tier health care is a system that guarantees public health care for citizens while allowing a private healthcare system to operate in parallel competition (Alston et al., 1997).
Many of the criticisms of Americanization of Canada’s political culture ostensibly arise due to a widely held belief that the US and its government, is essentially more conservative than Canada. The term ‘Americanize’ is therefore used as a campaign tool in Canada, and is used synonymously with the right-wing reform movements. Still, many Canadians believe that that the frequent use of the term ‘Americanization’ in the Canadian political discourse has nothing to do with the quality of life issues or the American politics but is rather used as a tool to frighten the Canadian constituents who portray part of their identity as Americans. To this school of thought, Americanization has no known negative consequences and it is only used as propaganda by the left-wing political parties to frighten the people that their interests and needs will never be taken care of when their country takes the path of Americanization. This is ostensibly done to win elections (Cummins & Christopher, 2005).
The Canadian rightist political groupings, essentially led by the Conservative Party and other right-wing interests groups such as the Fraser Institute have comprehensively denied that Americanization is happening in Canada. By contrast to the left-wing political orientations, they have tended to favor closer ties with the US in all fronts – political, social, and economical. The have been in the forefront in supporting some US political decisions such as the Kyoto Protocol , perceived to be unpopular among majority of other stakeholders. To the conservatives, developing closer ties with the American government is an inescapable reality and also good economically. Canada has been accused by the proponents of Americanization for “copying” the American federalist system that concentrate executive powers in the provinces. It has also been accused of aping republicanism, a concept that has its inherent roots in the US. The only difference is that Canada lacks the historic dedication to the concept of republicanism that has consistently dominated American political values (Gershenfeld, 2007).
Overall, both countries have a very similar system of social, cultural, and political values that are frequently been confused as Americanization. More or less, this concept of Americanization has also been brought forward by influential Canadian historians who sought to underscore a single climate of opinion which was anti-American and antidemocratic and entirely approved by the conservative values of the social and political elite. But it should be remembered that the US and Canada shared numerous similar political responsibilities and rights before the antidemocratic elites obstructed republicanism in Canada through the suppression of the revolts in 1837. Therefore, following some political orientations which are perceived to be American but which infact may have its roots in Canada should never be misconstrued to be Americanization (Alston et al., 1997).
There are very many similarities between the politics of the US and the politics of Canada that proponents of Americanization would want to use to stress their point. But it should not be lost on us that there exist many differences that give Canada enough ground to stand as a sovereign country regardless of the Americanization claims. For example, the US uses a congressional system while Canada makes use of a parliamentary system. In Canada, the head of government is the prime minister while in the US; the head of government is the president. These are some of the fundamental differences in the separation of powers (Alston et al., 1997).
Competing positions about Americanization
Many policy makers and politicians especially from the right-wing political orientations argue that there is nothing like Americanization of the Canadian political culture. They argue that what the leftists are calling ‘Americanization’ is only aimed at spurring greater economic growth in Canada as well as establishing closer ties that could mutually benefit the two countries. To them, there is nothing wrong in internalizing some beneficial American concepts as they have helped the country to move forward in achieving economic and political independence. For example, contrary to popular belief that the two-tier health system was basically an American concept, it has helped rejuvenate the health sector in Canada as patients can now have a choice visiting a public or a private doctor. To them, useful political concepts must not matter as to where they come from but should be internalized in Canada for the benefit of the constituents (Alston, 1997).
Another position is that all the reasons that contribute to Canadians feeling Americanized are at their best false. According to Peacock (2005), Canadian leaders may want the citizens to believe that they are different from the US citizens whereas they are not. Although the nationalists may like to instill a concept of cultural difference between the Americans and the Canadians, citizens of both countries still listens to the same music, the same television, enjoys the same sports, magazines, cuisine, and vacations at the same destinations. They all seek the same things in life. The concept of Americanization should never be tied with the idea of converting Canada’s welfare and healthcare systems from government-run to privately run. It should be understood that changing the systems is not meant to Americanize Canada but to make them more beneficial, efficient, and cost-effective to the Canadian people.
The evaluation of Americanization of Canadian political culture
In his retirement address, the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanov expressed deep concerns about the future independence of Canada in the face of Americanization of politics. As he said, politics in America is all about money and this is what was replicated in Canada in the 2001 elections. Important issues and policies were shoved aside and newspaper front-pages were filled with trivial content and wild accusations. This, according to Romanov is the gist of Americanization that is threatening to tear up the political setup of the country. But a recently conducted research revealed that indeed most Canadians (68.5%) would like to be Americanized and associated with the US. These are two conflicting views of Americanization of the Canadian political culture (Mattaine, 2008).
But on a closer look, one would realize that some of the concepts that Canadian political leaders accuse the US of are inherently Canadian or they do need to be learnt from anyone for them to be performed. The use of money in political systems to get political support is not inherently American as it is used in other countries that are not in any way associated with America and are not in close proximity to the country. Also, the idea of changing Canada’s healthcare systems, political systems, as well as social welfare programs was done in the hope of benefiting the Canadian constituents rather than Americanizing Canada. In my own evaluation, I can say that both countries have very different views of the purpose, nature, and evaluation of their political institutions. Even in history, the English Canadians remained very loyal to the British crown and never developed an antagonistic view of government and its related institutions thereby developing a bundle of values that centered on elitism and collectivism. Social collectivism is still rampant in Canada today and is one of the reasons as to why some efficient government policies such as the policy on two-tier healthcare system are seen as Americanized. The Americans by contrast rejected the British rule and developed a more universal and egalitarian values, thereby bringing out the differences in perception. Therefore, it can be argued that Canada is a country of political counter-revolution while America is a country of political revolution (Heath & Vasquez, 2001).
Recommended solutions
In more than one way, Canadian political culture resembles the European and North American political culture in that it emphasizes the freedom of religion, personal liberty, constitutional law, and regional autonomy (Alston et al., 1997). These political concepts are not innate to Canada but stems in various degrees from the French civil law traditions, the British common law, the English civic traditions, and the North American aboriginal government. Just like in America, peace, order, and good governance are the objectified goals of the Canadian government. The Canadian political culture is characterized by a strong tradition of tolerance, compromise, and loyalty. There is no time in history where Canadian politics have undergone swift, revolutionary changes. Infact, the political landscape of Canada have slowly changed through the various stages necessitated by the interested parties, the government of the day, and regional consultations.
Many are the times when the US and Canada are depicted as having a marriage- like relationship in which the US plays the role of an arrogant world-conquering cowboy while Canada plays a more traditional role of a cautious housewife. But these are only perceptions as both the US and Canada have their own unique cultures and heritages that are centuries old. The two countries have many similarities which have gone a long way in helping to strengthen their relationships.
One of the solutions to this perceived threat of Americanization of the Canadian political culture is to come up with ways by which the Canadian independence and self-sufficiency is maintained and preserved at all costs. This can only be achieved by strengthening the already existing Canadian democratic institutions of constitutional law, personal liberty, regional autonomy, and religious freedom. These institutions, which are of utmost importance for any democratic country, need to be strengthened to appear inherently Canadian. The population also needs to be educated on the importance of these institutions to the identity of the Canadian people (Alston, 1995).
Thirdly, political leaders, mainly from the leftist wing should be dissuaded from associating some good political concepts to Americanization for political gain. The importance of the country and its people need to be looked into before any political considerations. On numerous occasions, many left-wing politicians have been caught live tarnishing some of the policies that can uplift the lives of the Canadian citizens as Americanized for political gains. This need not be the case. A good policy should be implemented for the sake of the nation regardless of whether it originated from America (Heath & Vasquez, 2001).
Fourth, it is high time that the government thinks of tightening immigration laws to siphon off some thought systems which may not necessarily be American but which may prove disturbing to the Canadian citizens. The immigration policy of Canada is very relaxed to date and this might encourage some negative cultural as well as political shift to take root. Canada must never be allowed to be subservient to negative political cultures of the US or from any other country in the world due to its relaxed immigration laws.
Conclusion
Resemblance of political cultures of Canada and the US should not in any way be confused or associated with Americanization. Good political concepts and ideas need to be internalized in Canadian political system no matter the fact that they may appear to be inherently American. As one scholar noted, Americans and Canadians are basically human beings with the same tastes and preferences. It should be the function of the Canadian authorities to develop mechanisms that will ensure that only important American political concepts are assimilated into their culture, while leaving concepts that may have negative implications such as voter buying (Alston et al., 1997).
It should be the function of Canadian leaders to educate their citizens on how the world is changing both economically, socially, and politically. As such, it may be difficult to still hold on the principle of collective responsibility that most Canadians takes pride in. They should understand that individualism, though inherently American cannot be wished away by any regime in the world today. It is here to stay and should never be seen in any way as Americanization.
References
- Alston, J.P., Morris, T.M., Vedlitz, A. Comparing Canadian and American Values: New
- Evidence from National Surveys.” American Review of Canadian Studies, vol. 26. (1997).
- Cummins, T.G., and Christopher, G.W. US and its Americanization Strategies. London: Routledge. 2005
- Gershenfeld, J.C. The implications of Americanizing the world: Canadian case study. IRC
- Heath, R.L., Vasquez, G.M. The Canadian and US political Cultures: Similarities and differences. London: Routledge (2001)
- Mattaini, M.A. (2008). “Political effects of Americanizing Canada.” Journal of Politics. vol. 17, (2008)
- Omrad, J.E. (2003). American politics and its effects on neighbors (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130941998
- Political Culture of Canada. 2005.