The U.S. system is based on a separation of powers. The President is elected to that position, is independent from (and not in any way responsible to) Congress, and holds office for a fixed four year term whether or not he is supported by Congress (and often he is not). Members of both Houses of Congress are elected separately, also to fixed terms office, and operate independently of the President and (except where they wish to collaborate) of each other.
To prevent excessive power being wielded by any part of government, a system of checks and balances was included in the U.S. governing arrangements. The President can initiate legislation, which can then be rejected by Congress. Congress can pass legislation, which can then be vetoed by the President. There is even a provision that the President’s veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, but that is not easily achieved.
The American system has proven to be very effective in preventing excessive power being wielded by any part of the government – indeed, far too effective. Because of the extreme polarization of the two political parties in the U.S., the separation of powers has resulted in a dysfunctional system. There has been virtually no cooperation between the President and Congress. Most of President Obama's initiatives have been blocked by Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. There have been frequent periods of deadlock, including over the authorization of spending – to such an extent that the government actually had to shut down some operations on more than one occasion. The arrangements for separation of powers and checks and balances have been hijacked and perverted by the extremely polarized and partisan political parties in the U.S. to the point where the system is almost ungovernable.
The Canadian System
The situation in Canada is exactly the opposite. Our executive and legislative branches are not based on a separation of powers; they are linked together through the principle of responsible government. There is no election for the position of Prime Minister. Rather, Canadians vote for members of the House of Commons (the only body that we elect in our government system). Those members determine who shall form the government since it is responsible to them. In practice, this usually means that the political party that wins the most seats forms the government since only it is likely to receive the necessary support from the Commons. The leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.
Over the years, however, a number of factors have transformed the Canadian system of government. In particular, the evolution of extremely strong party discipline ensures that a governing party holding a majority of the seats in the House of Commons can take whatever actions it wishes without much fear of any consequences. If the American government has trouble getting anything done, our system suffers from a dangerous concentration of power in the position of Prime Minister and the staff who support this position in the PMO (Prime Minister's Office). This imbalance in our system became particularly evident with the authoritarian approach of Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the past decade. He governed with impunity, using omnibus bills and closure motions to make it very difficult for the opposition parties in the Commons to carry out their legitimate watchdog role. He also muzzled the public service, especially scientists in the public service who might offer views inconsistent with his ideology, and even controlled what elected members of his own party could say.
Where is the Happy Medium?
It is understandable if long suffering residents of the U.S. would prefer a government that can take concerted action, one that is not constantly held hostage by Congress. It is equally clear why many Canadians wish for some checks and balances on the excessive power of the Prime Minister, as that position has evolved. Both countries suffer from the fact that their fundamental governing principles have been taken to an extreme. Perhaps in addition to their discussions about such matters as free trade, border security, and the war on terrorism, they should also talk about what each might learn from the other about their respective governing systems and the fact that neither extreme separation nor extreme concentration of powers is a desirable situation.