In the modern society, it has become quite difficult to define politics, particularly in the contexts of the Canadian society. In reality, there have been diverse political factions, considering the fact that many have taken politics as a personal initiative as well as a public issue. It is this diversity that has been the source of dispute among different factions, some emphasizing the personal issues while others concentrating on the public concern or issues that affect majority of the population. In the political dimension, it has been liberals, socialists, or conservationists puling in different directions. This has offered the people opportunities to belong to either of the factions, depending on their ideological differences, and personal feelings related to their day to day life. For example, the pro-abortion and pro-life groups have been at loggerheads for quite a long time as each group struggles to put their arguments forward concerning the best way forward (Butler & Adams 29). In the mix of abortion tussle are the pro-abortion and pro-life groups, whose concerns are varied but merged with various political affiliations. Interestingly, while it is possible that each political party is dominated by the ideological beliefs as prescribed in the political parties’ manifestos, it is obvious that socio-economic behaviors such as abortion, sexual orientation, capitalism and socialism too affect political ideologies (Butler & Adams 24). It is therefore not easy to define what politics means as far as the modern perspectives are concerned.
The Canadian definition of politics is evidently different from the American one. In many of the Canadian views, politics is concentrated within the political parties separated by ideological differences and regional disintegrations (Wilton 167; Guy 31). It is the views and beliefs of the liberals and conservatives that define politics, based on each party’s manifesto. Supporting these ideologies are other issues related to group feelings defined by policies, tactics, strategies perpetuated by the media. It is evident that the traditional definition of politics has dominated the people’s beliefs, with clear and concise dimensions that “politics is the art and science of government” (Wilton 168). In other words, certain activities like sports, arts, as well as family life are considered to be outside the political definition and associating the aspects politics within the confines of the party. This is in contrast to American politics that is dominated by various cultural and social groups as well as arts. The Canadian version is highly contested due to its narrow perspective it portrays. Again the American version has presented another difficulty as there has been the question of what aspects of social life should be included in the “political” sphere. For example, feminists in United States have persisted that their personal views as far as feminism is concerned are political. In other words, the political dimension of life should also include issues that involve man and woman (Lerner 231). But the popular application of politics suggest that it is widely used in narrow dimension of government and party issues, hence the limited application in the Canadian society.
The definition of politics in First Nations is considered narrower and excludes social and cultural aspects of life. In this aspect, the dimension of more wide aspects such as gender, family, party affiliation, government, and many more are not included in the definition of politics. However, the revolutionized population of Canada has different practices as far as politics is concerned. It is through this perspective that Canadian people have included their personal views to be political, against the traditional government and party definitions instilled among the First Nations as well as the Aboriginal communities. According to Powderface, 1984 (cited in Foster, p. 103), ”under the auspices of the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, First Nations and Aboriginal people have been subjected to federal and provincial policies of denial, assimilation, integration, indigenization, and devolution.” Foster states that the government has imposed this narrowed definition of politics among the First Nations and Aboriginal populations. This restriction is based on the federal and provincial policies of denial, with little room to expand the wider view of its modern definition.
In my view, I would suggest a different view of politics as far as the current revolution of the term has been redefined. Politics is a phenomenon of life that is limited in time and space to particular issues as concerned society, involving liberalism, pluralism, and more critically give an opportunity for open debate. For example, when one says that particular issues of the society such as sports, personal and family life “should never be included in the politics as far as scope and definition is concerned” is in itself making a political statement. But if one decides to keep certain matters off politics, it can help him or her develop mechanism of effectively dealing with them in line with personal interest and social values.
Provinces’ Political Culture Differences
The political culture in Canada has been regionalized for quite some time. This regionalism has seen the country threatened by ideological differences defined by the border boundaries or geographical separations. This culture is rampant that at one time a Canadian political leader once remarked that “some countries have too much history; Canada has too much geography” and the influence of centrifugal forces on Canada continues to be felt today (Lerner 78). According to McAllister (2005) the reason is that 90% f Canada’s population lives within one hundred miles of the U.S. border- illustrating a three-mile- long ribbon of population. This has subsequently led to many Canadians having much more in common with their American neighbors than with their Canadian counterparts in the other side of the continent. The definition of Canada as community of communities has been seen in light of its geographical separation perpetuated by ethnic languages and cultures. This has led to the weakening of the central government as a very wide range of groups have sought constitutional rights for their members. For example when the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedom drafting took place in Canada, the Commission in charge went around Canada to hear suggestions from various groups as far as rights and Freedoms are concerned (McAllister, p. 79). Numerous different suggestions were given that included language, ethnic orientations, aboriginal rights, racial rights, gender rights, mobility rights, scholarly rights, and many more (McAllister, p. 79). Notably, these differences were conspicuously dependent on each province that had different social and cultural orientations as well as political views.
Some of the main components of Canada’s political culture are based on the disintegrated nature of their geographical separation. The first is the language rights. In this aspect, some of the provinces in Canada can be separated by language differences. Canada’s political culture has been over the years characterized by social, economic, and political aspects. However, the two main political parties of liberals and conservatives have been at the center stage of building various ideological differences confined within the political nature of the society. In Canada, there’s an exacerbated existing inter-provincial and regional economic disparities, which according to analysts, has been the main barrier towards the development of a distinct and unifying national political culture. Why has this been so? Precisely, one argument that has been put forward by many scholars is that two-thirds of the population in Canada always has resided in Ontario and Quebec. These two distinct provinces have been the arenas in which almost all the national elections in the past have been decided and intense political maneuverings have pitted the two provinces against each other. Notably, the dominant Westminster-model of Canada’s parliamentary government as well as disciplined parliamentary parties, the two major provinces with difference political views have been favored when it comes to political decision-making (Franklin & Baun, p. 231).
Due to this culture, it is believed that these two provinces’ dominance has been at the center of disunity that characterizes the Canadian political structure, causing public disaffection from the national government in the peripheral regions and the common behavior to rely on the provincial governments, irrespective of their partisan composition. In other words, these parties are simply in existence to represent specific provincial interests. Basically, it is believed that Canadians’ strong belief in provincial administration was strengthened by series of judicial overhaul which expanded the provincial powers in various fields mainly after the World War II (Pierce, p. 249). It is during this period that the public began to demand for more social services, increasing the growth of provincial administration roles, and subsequently strengthening of its powers over national governments.
The two main parties, conservatives and the liberals were built from Confederation. Precisely, Conservatives emerged from coalition of business professionals and Anglican Church elites in Ontario, and ultramontane French Catholics, and business professionals from Quebec. This kind of affiliation has historically dominated the Conservative Party, creating a scenario where the party members fight for the maintenance of the status quo against the liberals.
Quebec is the only province in Canada that still speaks French as a national language. The French language is what has symbolized the political development of the province, illustrating the historical French-Canadian people’s struggle for existence. In particular, Quebecers are generally unique in terms of their distinct values and beliefs. Many of their values are hinged on the basis of their cultural orientation and political development drawn from past struggles.
The Role of Various Political Units of Canada in Nation Building
Many scholars have concurred that Canadians from various provinces largely have similar tastes, values, and belief as far as economic and social developments are concerned (Butler & Adams 201). However, the only difference among Canadians is their politically divergent views that have led to political squabbles for many decades of the nation’s existence.
The Federal government in Canada represents the central unit of national governing body, tasked with many aspects of Canada’s social and economic development. In other words, the national government of Canada plays primary role in the development aspects of the nation such as social services provision, “building of the national economy, providing national security and defense of the Canada’s borders, establishment of First Nations Policy, foreign affairs, and dealing with criminal activities in the country” (Lerner, p. 78). However, it must be noted that Canada is not governed by single government unit when it comes to economic development. There are various levels and units of government units that have been tasked by the administration of various development initiatives including social and economic service provision. These institutions are based on their geographical scope such local or regional governments given the powers and responsibilities of building Canada economically and improving the social services.
Municipalities have been designed in the regional or provincial basis, where they are tasked with issues such as local planning and development issues of the regions or the provinces, protecting the citizens and their property through their regional police units, development and maintenance of transport system, and establishment and maintenance of recreational systems such as parks.
Even though these regional or provincial governments are restricted to issues within the confines of their territories, they have wide range of responsibilities such as crown land management and maintenance, provision of various social services (e.g. health, education, transportation, leisure and many more), and development of legal frameworks to deal with administration of justice.
The rural areas have been incorporated in the local government units. These local governments though not autonomous, have been entrusted with the building of national social and economic structures through their taxes to the provincial and regional governments. Similarly, cities in Canada represent the symbol of national unity that defined their territorial supremacy as far as development is concerned. In other words, regional governments have been involved in the development of cities, which have traditionally formed the symbols of regional prides and social development.
The federal government has been developed due to increased demand by the centralists. These groups believe that federal government is the best way of developing Canada into one unitary nation with strong national pride. They also believe that national or federal government will increase uniform development of regions with no boundary to access of national wealth. It will not limit the level of development in the regional perspective.
Considering the historical development of Canada and its prominent and diverse regional geographies, the centralists’ view of national and unitary government may be the most difficult task for the nation. Canadians have grown to believe in their regional governments to such a level that national government advocated by the centralists is seen as the beginning of weakened provincial or regional governments.
Many who believe in the decentralized governments have based their arguments that historical Canada can never be dismissed in favor of unitary government. Furthermore, there is a general feeling that centralized form of government will favor “Central Canada” or what many call “English Canada”, whose central role would conflict that of local or regional governments (Lerner, p. 76). The most prominent line of reasoning is that regional government institutions are in well placed to promote the local people’s interests, more than central government will do.
Canada as a state in the present status suggests that building of a stronger central power in the Federal system will mean that the top most authority will be vested in the central government and will not involve division of power between central state and regional or provincial states in anyway (Wilton, p. 57). It will therefore increase the party discipline and loyalty, and increasing the role of prime minister in the management of state affairs (Wilton, p. 58). In this case the increased party loyalty will help build further the national interest of the people. This is achievable when the party is able to control the parliamentary caucuses. Although the powers of the prime minister initially looked ceremonial, with cabinet ministers wielding a lot of powers and prime minister considered just first among equals, the present state is different. The most recent developments have seen prime ministers having powers to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers. It is possible to unite Canada into one unitary government but the autonomy of the provincial governments is not easy to eliminate considering their historical structure and the Canadian’s divergent political views.
Do political opinion polls strengthen or weaken democracy? Why must we know what others think about political issues before we make up our minds? Political opinion polls have become important way of shaping the direction of thinking of the people and leaders. Politicians have applied opinion poll results in the decision making process in order to assess the impact of their political decisions on voting intentions. Moreover, political leaders use opinion polls to gauge what people wants them to do most when they get into the political office. Generally, the use of opinion polls has been applied to influence people’s views in many areas such policy making. However, many have developed contradictory views especially in matters concerning the use of opinion polls and their authenticity in building democracy. Many scholars and observers alike have criticized political leaders who rely on opinion polls to make decisions on political developments. According to argument leveled against them, those who rely on public opinions to make critical decisions go the public office without any policy agenda, hence the lack of support.
Several studies have indicated that public opinion research based on probability sampling of certain populations are legitimate channels with which electorate may have a voice in the policy making process or promote grassroots democracy in the increasingly complex political world. But how is this relevant in Canada, considering the fact that the ordinary Canadians are largely disengaged from social issues? In other words, Canada’s version of politics has excluded all other aspects of social integration; hence polling may not reflect the public expectations. In fact, it is argued that the “complexity of substantive issues that comprise public policy such as national debt, federal-provincial conflicts, or the role of Canada in the international affairs” demand deeper understanding beyond the scope of ordinary citizens (Foster 90). In such a case, it may not be logical to seek voters’ opinions on what is needed as there’s likelihood of getting a misinformation as far as genuine public opinion is concerned.
The science of polling
Canada just like other nations has in several occasions relied on opinion polls to establish or entrench policy issues within their governance. While opinion polls are entangled with the need to seek public opinions as far as performance of the government or political office is concerned, it has several loopholes especially in the context of Canada. Basically, Canadian politics is unique and different from other developed nations like United States. The people’s historical orientation has been that politics is single-dimensional issue that ignores social issues like race, gender, feminism, education and many other issues. But it must be admitted that the answers one is likely to receive from Canadians is related to their social life in terms of views, opinions, and expectations and not political parties and leaders as one may assume.
The link between public policy decisions and opinion polls are directly associated with governments desire to seek approval from the public as far as their performance is concerned. This kind of policy development is associated wit a variety of issues that have been defined by the government agencies and not Canadians. Many critics of political opinion polls have alluded to the fact that Canadians perceive the key issues facing the country has basically been defined by the results of the latest opinion polls, which seem to dictate majority’s views.
The question that I would find relevant to ask the people of Canada in their locality would be related to their social lifestyle and how government activities influence them. It would also be relevant to develop questions that reflect their social change and what they feel should be improved in the social structure of the Canadian society. The most probable result would be directly linked to their personal feelings as far as government and politics is concerned, creating an arena for political development.
Political Ideologies
Political ideologies have been historically used to embody the image of social and political reality and account of how this reality could be improved in the development of political society. In short the political ideologies helps us make good and quick judgments on the on the complex issues of the society where we live. It is through ideologies that we get the description of society, gives us an intellectual picture where we are able to position ourselves in the social structure.
Political socialization is a critical aspect of the society that helps us develop the inclining structure of where we belong against other social groups. For example, many liberals believe that the social and political world is made up of individuals who despite working together will remain with their personal individuality intact. It therefore follows that political life is defined by the understanding of a series of individual politician’s choices as well as decisions about how we should corporate or get a long together. However, radical socialists often view societal arrangements in terms of conflicts and social and economic injustices that occur to people belonging to the society. Political socialization therefore provides an account of social reality, reflecting a set of political ideals describing the best way of forming and running social organization like a political party. The political and social picture of the society is accompanied by the picture of an ideal society. In this light, a nationalist will view nation as the ideal form of political organization suited to the general welfare of the society.
However, some societal values and beliefs are likely to compromise the existing formal ideology of the society. The first is the religious dimension of the society. If a society is inclined towards a particular religious wing seem to set its own political and social ideology, there is likelihood of such religious wing compromising an individual’s beliefs. The other issue is the change of social structure of the society. If one who advocates communism emerges extremely wealthy against the backdrop of poor populace, his belief and loyalty to the ideology of just society may be questioned. Such changes may compromise the political structure of communism ideology.
In a fair judgment of the political ideology inclination, the question that I will ask a politician to gauge his or her political ideology is related to the social and economic structure of the society as well as the belief in what entails and ideal society.
Examining Society’s National Ideology
Ideologies are known to influence the imaginative maps of the society with clear concise what the society should look like in the general format. This kind of structure can be examined through analysis of political subject matter and the role played by each political unit. In this aspect, one critical issue should be taken into consideration: those political thoughts are not cast in stone but exist in behavior, routines as well as practices that define the society’s heart of thinking in the long term political belief. In summery, the changes that exist in the political beliefs are social and economic structures that are flexibly arranged in order to fit with the changes that may occur within nation over the years.
Robert Lane’s classification of the functions of political ideologies is based on the belief that political ideology is concerned with the societal behavioral as well as routine actions. It is therefore stated that how individuals behave may determine how they would define their political, social and economic goals hence the infusion of political thinking as the pinnacle of political ideology.
Political Ideology in Canada
‘Canadians are not highly ideological’ in the sense that most of their ideological orientations are defined by the narrow political beliefs in terms of economic differences. While many Canadians would be considered to belong to either conservative or liberal wings of political ideologies, they have not considered their social aspect of politics that mainly define the modern political ideologies. In fact, many scholars belief that opinion polls role in the shaping of public opinions in Canada has been the defining moment of political ideology. This shows how less ideological Canadians are.
In general terms, Canadians are normally refer themselves as either liberal or conservatives but the bottom line is that ideology of the parties are based on the social integration of the communities which seem to share everything ranging from economic to social. Apart from the province of Quebec, other parts of Canada are generally similar in terms of social ideologies. The two parties are only confined in the government definition of politics, leaving various aspects of community existence open.
Considered to be in the middle ground of the two parties of Liberals and conservatives, Canadians could never survive with extreme political ideologies advocated by Nazism. Nazism was a strong political ideology whose adherents believed in special kinds of humans with specific intelligence and physical features.
Conservatism assumes that the society should maintain the status quo and that no uniformity can be achieved in the societal social strata. Socialism on the other hand assume that society needs to be laid in the form of equal justice and that the need to develop political structure that serve people equally and at the same time build the population of a nation in an equal economic platform. Basically, this ideology has not been achieved due to individual desire to own property. Human nature is arranged in the desire to be superior and not single individual would want to be equal to others.
Works Cited
- Butler, Peter & Adams, Michael. Polling and Public Opinion: Canadian Perspective. Toronto. University of Toronto Press, 2007.
- Foster, Leslie. People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia. New York. UBC Press, 2007.
- Franklin, Daniel & Baun, Michael. Political Culture and Constitutionalism: a Comparative Approach. New York. M.E. Sharpe, 1994.
- Guy, James. People, Politics, and Government 7th. ed. Scarborough, Ontario. Pearson Education, 2010.
- Lerner, Daniel. Why The American Common Man Believes What He Does: Book Review. New York. The Free Press of Glencoe, 1994.
- McAllister, Mary. Governing Ourselves? : The Politics of Canadian Communities. New York. UBC Press, 2005.
- Pierce, John. Political Culture and Public Policy in Canada and the United States: Only a Border Apart?. Ontario. Edwin Mellen Press, 2000.
- Wilton, Carol. Popular Politics and Political Culture in Upper Canada, 18000-1850. Montreal. McGill- Queen’s University Press, 2000.