Brian Risman BA(Hons.), MA(Hons.), AICB

April 03, 2001

On the surface, countries in the English-speaking world have many similarities, for example the Common Law system. However, when you scratch a little deeper, it is apparent that these countries are in fact very different politically and legally. Why the differences ? History is a major reason; key events in the history of these countries have shaped them and their people in very different ways. Another reason for the differences centers on what becomes the legal/political cornerstone of the country. I will illustrate my points with comments on Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

First, Canada. Canadians have always put their political emphasis on the Parliament. Parliamentary elections are very volatile and intense, with the nation seemingly deep in political civil war. The reason – Canadians feel that their political emotional release and issues are played out in the Parliament. Why ? Well, the Canadian political scene is very populist – the extremely successful 3-times-elected Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, is from the people – he is a lawyer, with physical disabilities, who is from a mill town deep in Quebec. His nickname, "the little guy from Shawinigan", tells the story – note the emphasis on "little guy". Not to say that everyone agrees or supports the government. Party loyalty is quite weak among the populace, to the point that even Members of Parliament from the governing Liberal Party will open up in fierce debate on any issue. Hence, there is a very strong tie between the local Riding (Canadian term which reflects the populism – others call them Constituencies) and their Member. That, of course, includes the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, who can be wiped out by political defeat fighting for their seat in Parliament.

However, the Constitution, which was written in 1982, is very much a side player on the political scene. Why ? The Constitution, created long after the creation of Canada in 1867, was created for a legalistic reason – namely, the patriation from the U.K. to Canada of the amending Constitutional power present in the 1867 British North America Act, passed by Westminster, that created Canada. A Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added. The Charter has had impact legally; but I would be hard pressed to place any centrality of the Canadian Constitution in the Canadian political scene. Bottom line, the people’s Parliament matters, and that is where the political battles are fought.

Now, the United States. A very different situation exists, where a Constitution created by a learned group of merchants and landowners, albeit a very enlightened one for the time, became the centerpiece of the nation. All of the institutions in the U.S. world – the President, Congress, Supreme Court – derive their power from the Constitution.

Hence, U.S. history was largely shaped by Constitutional interpretations : Chief Justice John Marshall’s early decisions regarding the powers of the political players; the development of the Commerce powers. Later decisions led to Civil War – Dred Scott v. Sanford. Even modern politics are affected by the Court – Brown v. Board on Civil Rights, Roe v. Wade on Abortion, Miranda v. Arizona on the Rights of the Arrested. Very, very different from Canada.

The major political battles in the U.S. are fought around the Constitution – the actual institutions are in many ways side players.

Finally, the United Kingdom. As a Canadian, I found it interesting and instructive hearing the questions from a British tourist taking the tour of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa. All of his questions centered on ‘how representative the Parliament is of the wishes of your people’. The guide, needless to say, found it hard to answer him in terms of the populism of the Parliament. Indeed, I didn’t truly understand his comments until I took Constitutional Law in the University of London LLB programme. While I recognized the Parliamentary institutions and the similarity of the practices, the reality of Parliamentary Sovereignty and representation in the U.K. was very foreign to my experience. Reading further in the U.K. newspapers, I began to understand – the political leadership in the U.K. seems to come from ‘Oxbridge’ – either Oxford or Cambridge. While the MPs are representing the people, they are not representative of the people. So where do people focus their political strength ? From my outside perch, it seems that the focus becomes the social class – for example, the working class unions.

Three countries – all very different. Unions are very big in the U.K., important in the U.S. yet in Canada, despite the strong industrial base in Ontario and Quebec, unions hold little sway or power. A citizen of the U.K. looking at Canada would be stunned by the politically weak unions, not realizing that real power resides elsewhere. A citizen of the U.S. looking at the U.K. would not understand how the country can work without a central written Constitution. A Canadian looking at the U.S. would find the centrality of the Constitution strange, with the political institutions dependent on that document. Similarly the U.S. citizen seeing the Canadian Constitution as a political sidelight.

Understanding these differences are key to understanding the issues that drive the politics of the country. The history of these countries has shaped their power base, resulting in very different worlds. An example – I spoke to an American colleague about the Parliamentary system, explaining how Non-Confidence operates. He thought that the Prime Minister lost confidence in the Parliament and fired them ! He could not comprehend that in fact the opposite is the reality – that Parliament loses confidence in the Prime Minister ! Of course, you don’t really do that sort of thing, do you – that is overthrowing the Government ! Oh yes, we do, I responded – in 1979, 1974, 1963, 1958 and on and on….

That is what makes the study of Law and Politics in different countries interesting –- you can find your preconceived notions challenged by their different approach to political power.