Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T05:48:56.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consociational Democracy and Canadian Federalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

S. J. R. Noel
S. J. R. Noel
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is only natural that Canada should most frequently be compared with the United States, and that models, metaphors, and theories of the political system that are applicable to the one should be assumed to be applicable to the other. That there are certain close similarities is obvious: both are federations, both span the North American continent, both are affluent Western democracies, and both exist within the common economic framework of modern capitalism. These and other similarities, however, too often obscure the significance of those differences which do exist, or cause similarities which exist with other countries to be neglected. This is particularly true of European countries, even though it would appear to be the case that Canadians, with their strong linguistic and cultural differences, have a good deal in common with at least some Europeans. This is not to say that Canada is more European than American. It is merely to suggest that there may be some advantages to be gained from occasionally viewing Canadian politics from a European perspective.

Type
Notes
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 15 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Canadian Parties and Politics,” in Leach, R. H., ed., Contemporary Canada (Durham, NC, 1968), 135.Google Scholar

2 “‘Limited Identities’ in Canada,” Canadian Historical Review, L, no. 1 (March 1969),9. A parallel view may be found in the field of literary criticism: “When we speak of a recognizably Canadian poet we usually mean a regional poet who uses the distinctive objects and actions of his locality as poetic materials.” Wilson, Milton, “Other Canadians and After,” Tamarack Review, IX (1958–1959) 89.Google Scholar

3 For a more extended discussion of consensus and the role of parties, see my paper “Political Parties and Elite Accommodation: Interpretations of Canadian Federalism,” Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, June 1970.

4 For a more extensive presentation of the theory than that contained in the preceding article in this Journal, see Lijphart, Arend, “Consociational Democracy,” World Politics, XXI, no. 2 (Jan. 1969), 207–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 This usage follows Apter, David E., The Political Kingdom in Uganda: A Study in Bureaucratic Nationalism (Princeton, 1961).Google Scholar

6 “Consociational Democracy,” 220–1.

7 For a glimpse into the origin of this failure, see Camp, Dalton, Gentlemen, Players and Politicians (Toronto, Montreal, 1970), 238–52.Google Scholar

8 See , Stevens, “Laurier, Aylesworth, and the Decline of the Liberal Party in Ontario,” Historical Papers, Canadian Historical Association, 1968, pp. 94–113.Google Scholar

9 See Gwyn, Richard,Smallwood: The Unlikely Revolutionary (Toronto, 1968),102–3.Google Scholar