1 / 18

Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Military: Canada's Weakness in the Westminster Tradition

This article examines why Canada's parliamentary scrutiny of the military is weak in comparison to other Westminster states. It explores the influence of the American bias, Westminster structures, and other variables such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. The study highlights the strength and weaknesses of Canada's parliamentary system and suggests that electoral incentives and lack of transparency contribute to its weakness.

seaton
Download Presentation

Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Military: Canada's Weakness in the Westminster Tradition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Military in the Westminster Tradition: Why is Canada so Weak? Philippe Lagassé Associate Professor and Barton Chair Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Carleton University

  2. Outline • Legislatures and scrutiny of defence affairs • American Bias • Westminster Structures • Variables among Westminster states • The United Kingdom • Australia • New Zealand • Canada • Conclusions

  3. Legislatures and Defence Affairs • Research question: • How and why do democratic legislatures vary in their oversight of the military and defence policy? • Fifteen country study • Hundreds of interviews with parliamentarians, ministers, advisors, officials and GOFOs. • Intra and inter-regime comparison • Presidential systems • European/Continental Parliaments • Westminster Parliaments

  4. American Bias • The American Constitution and United States Congress as the democratic standards • Separation of powers between the President and Congress in military affairs • Budgets • Promotions • Military service and loyalty • War powers • Congressional Oversight • Classified information • Large staffs and budgets • Budgetary leverage and promotion influence • Visible and powerful committees

  5. Westminster Structures • Separation of powers mingled with the confidence convention: • Executive with confidence is solely responsible for defence affairs and controlling the military • Parliament holds the executive to account for its performance • Parliament passes the budget, but it is set by the government • Parliament and the military: • Review rather than oversight • Accountability rather than control • Limited committees, little direct leverage, reliance on unclassified information

  6. Variables and Measures

  7. The British Parliament

  8. The British Parliament

  9. The Australian Parliament

  10. The Australian Parliament

  11. The New Zealand Parliament

  12. The New Zealand Parliament

  13. The Canadian Parliament

  14. The Canadian Parliament

  15. The Canadian Parliament

  16. Sources of Strength, Causes of Weakness • Strength: • Independently-minded parliamentarians • Low turn over • Parliamentary careers • Subject matter interest/expertise • Influence-seeking • Robust estimates processes, Public Accounts Committees, Auditors General • Estimates about more than money • PACs and AGs are key accountability actors for defence management and procurement • Classified information? Not as important as we might think • Transparency: Baseline minimum is required

  17. Sources of Strength, Causes of Weakness • Weakness: • Party discipline in confidence chambers • High turn over rates for elected members • Members incentivized to seek ministerial offices • Classified information: can be a source of weakness, too • Transparency: an obstructionist executive does not help

  18. Conclusion • Why is Canada so weak? • Blame our electoral system and the incentives it structures for parties and MPs • Our lack of transparency does not help either • We are overly dependent on the OAG and interested Senators • Could it be worse? • At least we’re not New Zealand!

More Related