Very interesting blog! If you are interested in WWE Diva’s, check out Victoria’s site!…

Fair enough. Of course, we have to take into consideration a truism that one Chief Executive once said: “If I want to make it appear that I’m doing something about a certain situation, yet I really don’t want it done, I simply assign it to a committee. It will waste away and die a natural death.”

You forgot to consider the major difference between Canada and the US: latitude. Most of Canada is too far north and too cold, not to mention infertile. Most of Canada’s population is in the south near the US border because of this very factor. Some Canadians jokingly complain that North America should have been divided east-west rather than north-south so they could get a taste of warmer climes. If not for these geographic factors, the US and Canada would probably achieve closer parity in population and power. Anyway, the more relevant comparisons for me are those countries in Latin America, virtually all of whom have had serious political problems with dictatorships, coup d’etats and revolutions leading to breakdowns of democracy.

I myself am in favor of trying out a parliamentary system for our country because of the numerous advantages others have pointed out. However, one big factor for me, is the failure of the presidential system in our country. It has broken down in the past and is breaking down now. I don’t know see how tweaking the system here and there would prevent future problems, for, it appears to me that the defect is in the fundamentals. Why would we keep a system that has been shown to be a failure time and again in our context and history? We should adjust our political system to fit the needs of our people and not try to shoehorn our people into an ill-fitting system. Correct me, if I am wrong, but I see precious few countries where the presidential system has worked well for a significant amount of time apart from the US.

In a parliament, the majority rules, The ,omprity can oppose all they want but it comes down to a vote in the end. In Gloria’s proposed Constitution, her extra power is appointing her cabinet to the parliament plus thirty others of her choice.

The Question and Answer period is just another way of letting off steam. Remember the parliamentary debates and question and answer periods in the British Parliament on the Iraq War? Did they change Blair’s poicy t all?

Also, question and answer periods are effective when there is a free press. That means a press limited only by libel and slander laws which are not restrictive. In the proposed constitution, freedom of the press was defined to include “responsible”.

The threat of dissoluion and election at anytime is more theoretical than practical. This threat exists depending on the composition of a parliament. In one party or one coalition parliaments like Singapore or Malaysia, this threat simply dos not exist.

Something even worse about this threat is this: The ruling party can call an election anytime and specify the length of campaigning before any election. Usually a ruling party calls for an election before a mandated general election to catch the opposition off-guard. They call the election when they are riding high on the polls and they give a very short campaign period. The tactic is resorted to when a ruling party foresees tough times ahead.

For example if they forecast a tight financial situation around the time of the mandated general election, they will call elections while they still enoy a good economy in order to avoid facing the electorate when the crisis hits.

The better system is presidential, Just compare Canada to the US. There is no better comparison. Both former British colonies. Both English speaking and both with a minority speaking some other language. Both rich in natural resources. Both very liberal democracies. Which country is more advanced and powerful?