It is publicly known that the leaders of the parties in Canada are in possession of too much power than they need. Source from the House of Commons in Canada discloses that over some time now, there is a system that has been developed. It has a meaning that a leader possesses too much authority over the rank and the members of parliament. In this study, the theme is to identify how these leaders wield power.
According to Peter Milliken, the former Speaker of the House of Commons before the cancellation of the elections, party leaders had too much power in their possession and they ruled everything in the house. He points out those members who had issues that did not impress the leaders, would not table the matter in the house and were not allowed to raise any questions regarding the same. It was found out that the unity that prevailed in the parties is the reason as to why the leaders have more power over the party members (Milliken, 2011). There have been suggestions that the unity in the parties should not be that fixed and that the difference in opinions of these parties should be aired to the public. Milliken claims that when he was still the speaker of the house, he chaired many minority parliaments than any speaker ever in that position. He points out that these minorities would never dare to try anything in a majority parliament probably because of the presence of the party leaders. Those in power are therefore seen to be condemning the acts of others more than they act on their attitudes. They are normally seen to be abusive to the system and they act as they are entitled to abuse it. Sources have declared that the powerful people who have been compromised in situations always show little sign of penitent (“Science and technology”, 2010).
Another incident when leaders wield power is according to Washington post. Pelosi was convincing the Democrats who were the minority at that time that there was a plan on how they could wield power. She lacked the power to make things happen in her ways like when she was the speaker. The current speaker also did not have the power, and this is why her plan was to disappear so that the speaker wouldn’t find her when she was needed. Pelosi shared her ideas with the minority leader of the Senate that was conversant with the plan. She made a lot of efforts and convinced other members to reject the speaker’s proposal that was to stop the funding of the department of homeland security. From the happenings that have been explained earlier in the study, some discovery has been made. It is seen that if those who are not on the dominance side shows signs of rising, those in power react aggressively. The powerful have a notion that they can escape punishment from the real dominants (“Science and technology”, 2010).
Leaders are seen to use the power in their dockets, some of them for the better of their people. As for the case of Pelosi, she used her influence to the members to ensure that the security force was given all the necessary resources. Other leaders use the power to oppress others just like in the case of the House of Commons where leaders did not tolerate any issues that did not make up for them
References
Milliken, P. (2011). Party Leaders Wield Too Much Power. CBC News. Web.
Science and technology: Absolutely; the psychology of power. (2010). The Economist, 394, 75-76. Web.