In this case, the power issue is the ability of the winning party in an election to appoint his opponent during the election to serve in the same cabinet after losing the election. Thus, Stephen Harper, who is from the conservative party that won the election, has relative power to appoint any member to his cabinet, provided it is beneficial to the conservative party.
David Emersion has relative power to accept or decline any appointment because he owes his appointment to his party and his voters. The riding association has relative power over Emersion because it financed his campaign. Lastly, the voters have some power over Emersion because they appointed him to represent them.
The ethical assessment of this case is that Harper appointed Emersion for his own benefit. The appointment of Emersion will enable him to have numbers in passing various bills. Another ethical issue is Emersion accepting the appointment to serve in his opponent’s cabinet. This is unethical of Emersion to accept such an appointment for personal interest.
There is some management element exhibited in this case by Harper in appointing Emerson to be a representative to the people of British Columbia in the cabinet. This is important for Harper to have even representation in all the regions.
Emersion faces a conflict of loyalty when accepting an appointment to serve on a different party rather than the one he was elected. In this case, another conflict is a conflict of personal interest exhibited by both Harper and Emersion, who act based on their personal interests. The first conflict has not been resolved as there are still campaigns to have David Emersion resign and run for a by-election.