New York's Coalition Government

Almost a month after November's election, the leadership of New York's state Senate was finally decided. The method for the decision was decidedly unusual.

The Independent Democratic Conference, a now-permanent caucus of breakaway Democrats, will share power with the Republicans in the Senate. In a move that will require rewriting the Senate's rules, the position of Senate president will alternate biweekly between IDC head Jeff Klein and Republican conference leader Dean Skelos. Klein and Skelos will share authority over the daily Senate agenda, the budget, and the appointment of committee and leadership positions.

How well this new arrangement will work in practice remains to be seen. Reactions outside the Senate have been mixed. Steven Greenberg, a pollster for Siena College, told Bloomberg, "It's easy to craft a press release. It's much harder to actually implement." (1) Bruce Gyory, a Democratic consultant and political science professor, noted that there is no precedent for this sort of power sharing, though that doesn't mean it can't work. Another Democratic consultant, Michael Tobman, said, "Creativity is the foundation of innovative governing. Let's see how this works." (2)

It should be an interesting show. This arrangement will be an experiment in coalition government, almost akin to a parliamentary system. Republicans will rely on votes from the breakaway Democrats in order to maintain control of the Senate, meaning Republicans will have to accept some Democratic priorities they may not much like. But they will not be entirely hostage to their partners in the IDC either, because these Democrats now have no way out. If they go back to their own caucus, they are likely to spend the rest of their Albany careers in a political wilderness as punishment for their perceived betrayal. If they abandon their Republican allies, after all, there are only five of them.

In any case, New York Republicans are a comparatively moderate breed. And Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to keep to a centrist path, given his national ambitions. It probably serves his purposes to continue to demonstrate that he can govern along with a legislature under divided partisan control. The current occupant of the White House, who Cuomo may hope to succeed, has shown little talent in this area.

The real test of Cuomo's ability to lead under these conditions will come next spring: whether he and the legislature can again deliver an on-time budget, which was as rare in Albany as a unicorn sighting before Cuomo took office. A repeat performance would be a solid demonstration of the long-term feasibility of the Senate's new leadership-by-coalition, as well as a solid political win for the governor.

Whether or not the experiment works, there will be some who remain unhappy with this outcome.

Mainstream Senate Democrats and their allies lost no time playing the race card, complaining to The New York Times that the defectors' alliance with the GOP deprives minority politicians of the spoils they believe are rightfully theirs. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has never held elective office (though not for lack of trying, with aborted runs for president, New York City mayor and three races for the U.S. Senate), called for a rally against the legislative coalition.

Apart from Senate Democrats, the biggest losers in this coalition may be Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his fellow Assembly Democrats, who are of a much more orthodox liberal bent than their counterparts. They are likely to find themselves, once again, constrained by a Senate effectively under Republican control.

As an interesting footnote to the New York story, two Democrats in Washington's state Senate defected to the Republican Party in December, giving the GOP a 25-24 edge in that chamber, according to The Washington Post. One of the defecting senators, Rodney Tom, extracted a pledge from Republicans to make him their party's majority leader, which will require changing Senate rules when the legislature convenes.

Compared to the surprise in Olympia, or even the New York Senate's own sordid recent history, the new alliance between the rebel Democrats and the Albany Republicans seems as straightforward as a high school civics class. I hope it works out that way. New York is a state that could use a hefty dose of good government.

Sources:

1) Bloomberg, "New York Senate to Be Led by Democrat-Republican Coalition"

2) Crain's New York, "Break up the Senate: GOP, Dems ink deal"

For more articles, please visit the Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC newsletter or subscribe to the blog.

Newsletter: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/sentinel/

Blog: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/current-commentary/

View the original article here

The Machinery of Government in Canada

Canada is made of a democratic parliament and a monarch which is constitutional. The law assumes the most superior authority and government acts on democratic systems. The Canadian government is people driven and acts as a crown deriving its power from the citizens. The British native systems were the sources of its parliamentary system which colonialists and explorers passed on to the continent.

The federal government constitutes of three branches namely the Judiciary, the legislature and the executive. The legislature is three made up of three organs including the House of Commons which comprise elected members, the senate which consists of appointed members and the executive comprising of the bureaucratic government and the cabinet.

Law making in Canada is collective and carried out by the provincial, territorial and federal governments therefore giving rise to a federal nation. In Canada the government and its ministers are held accountable for their actions. This means that the ministers who are the head of departments should be responsible for outcomes of the policies that they make. For them to be responsible they have to involve the House of Commons who are the representatives of the people in decision making.

The ministers are held accountable for the manner in which they use their powers in effective administration of their relevant departments. Opposition members in the caucus and House of Commons act as watchdogs to ensure that the government and its ministers are held accountable for the policies made (Tomlin, 1985). The back benchers are opposition members in house who either may belong to a certain political party or not affiliated to any party. They ensure effective representation of the minority in the house by checking the exercise of power by those in government and effective legislation which should cater for dissenting views. They perform the watch dog functions by making sure that dissenting opinions on cabinet policies are openly conveyed and defended (Myers, 2009).

There are four central agencies in the federal government of Canada namely; Privy Council office, department of Finance, prime minister's office and the Treasury Board. The heads of the agencies are appointed by the prime minister. They help in coordinating the huge and varied organizations forming the government and giving advice to the ministers and prime minister. They perform vital functions in prioritizing the government initiatives by coordination of the line departments, give solutions to problems arising between ministries and appropriate resource allocation (Myers, 2009). Caucus in the parliament of Canada refers to a group of house members affiliated to a certain party and at many instances coming from the same regions. The caucus are important to maintain cohesiveness to ensure proper organization and viability which is to their own mutual advantage and that of their parties (Tomlin, 1985). Merit principle is a guideline used by the Canadian government for appointment to public offices. This replaced patronage ensuring appointments with no political interference. It was adopted to address the need for more technical and specialized skills when promoting and hiring. This was a great concern in appointments to governor in council where some recommendations were made: that appointment should just more than patronage, different degrees of scrutiny are needed for different positions and nomination is the best protocol in search for the best candidate (Myers, 2009). Affirmative action policy is observed in Canada to ensure equity to all appointments to all the citizens especially women and the minority. This policy targets to protect its citizens from discrimination on the following grounds: religion, family status, race, sex, disability, marital status, colour, ethnic or national origin.

The Equity section of the Canada fundamental bill of rights has undergone amendments to accommodate the rising needs. Agenda setting in Canada is important as it gives the insights of the working of its political system and policy formulation process. This enables to avoid any changes in policy outcomes thereby ensuring political attention stability (Tomlin, 1985). The federal government of Canada consists of diverse and huge organizations therefore most of the powers should not be concentrated on the prime minister. The parliament should make some reforms to cut down the powers of the prime minister. This will ensure legitimacy in the legislative process and policy implementation. The judges ought to be appointed by independent bodies for effective protection of the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Full democracy will only prevail on centralizing the powers held by the prime minister.

Works Cited

Maureen Appel Molot, Brian W. Tomlin. Canada Among Nations 1985. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1986.
Patrick Malcolmson, Richard Myers. The Canadian Regime. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009.

View the original article here