How are those famous checks on power doing?

David Mitchell contrasts situations in U.S. and Canada.

This is a tale of two countries, two democracies, governed differently but depending on similar accountabilities.

While the Canadian model is generally considered an exemplar of stability, focused on “Peace, Order and Good Government,” with a built-in resistance to reform, the American constitution has concentrated on “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” with an explicit distrust of centralized authority. In fact, the

U.S. system has from the start been explicitly based on a separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government — they were intended to be both distinct and coequal in order to prevent abuses of power, and are therefore associated with the famous American system of checks and balances.

By contrast, Canada has no constitutional separation of powers or checks and balances. In the parliamentary system, the executive is represented within the legislative branch of government and, while the prime minister and cabinet members are required to answer questions and defend policies on a daily basis, they also usually dominate proceedings.

So how are we faring today? And how are those checks and balances working?

There have been numerous junctures over previous generations when the American system has resulted in so-called legislative gridlock. Especially when an American president is compelled to deal with a Congress dominated by a different party, it can be difficult to gain a working consensus allowing for major new initiatives to proceed. This situation calls for compromise, diplomacy and building trusting relationships, none of which can be taken for granted. And if a legislative stalemate occurs, that’s often precisely what the U.S. system was designed to produce. Think, for example, of President Donald Trump’s inability to fulfil his promise to repeal Obamacare. Or President Barack Obama’s failure to have a Supreme Court nominee approved in his final year in office.

On such occasions, some Americans have longed for a parliamentary system, where an elected majority government isn’t generally subjected to the frustration of political roadblocks.

Canada’s current minority government makes it necessary for the governing Liberals to seek the support of one or more opposition parties in order to survive a confidence vote, providing the legislative branch with extraordinary influence over the prime minister, his cabinet and the direction of public policy. And it doesn’t allow a government to escape detailed opposition scrutiny such as in the current scandal over WE funding to members of the families of the prime minister and his finance minister.

A Canadian majority government is generally regarded as being stronger and more in control of its destiny than an American counterpart. Even without any formal checks and balances, however, Canadian administrations are held accountable by a number of countervailing forces. For example, abuses of authority by a Canadian prime minister are in principle held in check by the courts, cabinet, caucus, Parliament, parliamentary committees, the public service, provincial and territorial governments, the news media and civil society. Are any of these effective? That’s a matter for discussion and debate. But with the exception of Canada’s independent and respected judiciary, the other countervailing forces are often more evident in principle than in practice.

The U.S. is a different matter. Currently, there’s declining confidence in constitutional checks and balances, as Trump appears to have an iron grip on the Republican-dominated Senate and has further politicized America’s judicial system. Even so, although he has demonstrated an astounding disrespect for the institutions of government and repeatedly disrupted or disregarded constitutional norms, he hasn’t always been able to get his way.

Trump represents precisely the kind of aberrant leader that the American founders were aiming to guard against when they formulated their brilliantly articulated constitution. Yet, the United States wasn’t able to prevent the election of a rogue president and now all of the checks and balances are actually reduced to one essential protection: a free and fair election.

Even in an age when the centralization of power is increasingly evident in all democracies, the forthcoming U.S. elections represent the definitive test of democratic accountability. And in both of our countries, that’s probably the ultimate check and balance.

David Mitchell is a Calgary-based policy analyst and Canadian historian.