Power and the Federal State in Canada

Abstract

There are differing views about the power of the nation-state as we face the millennium. Some academics, journalists, and other policy critics suggest nation-states have become so powerless that in the 21 st century they will be replaced by regional or global authorities or, alternatively, anarchy. According to this argument, the power of the nationstate has been hollowed out by globalization and liberalization of markets. Since polls indicate that the public expects less from the nationstate in coming years, it would appear that they have bought the argument. The key concern is that power is moving away from the nationstate, which is accountable through elections, and towards actors who are not accountable in any effective way.My own view is different: although the Canadian government has lost some power and has to share power with others, it can still exert significant power when it needs or wants to do so.What the Critics SayAfter the mid-1600s, the nation-state gradually became the dominant actor in the international economy and in international relations and the prime mover in the development and management of people's economic and social life. This role grew during the 18th and 19th centuries as European powers colonized America, Asia, and Africa. With multipolar political structures and wide-open development opportunities, the state and market clearly shared the field -- neither dominated, except in localized circumstances. It can be argued that the role of the state reached its zenith in the years after the Second World War, when the bipolar cold-war era dominated the international agenda and markets frequently took a back seat to the geopolitical concerns of one of the superpowers or their surrogate states.When cold-war politics began to thaw and finally melted away with the weakening and ultimate collapse of the Soviet empire in the 1980s, the dominant position of states in international affairs seemed to disappear. Now they share their ability to set and influence the agenda with business, non-governmental organizations, and many other actors in the economy.Have Nation-states Outlived Their Usefulness?Kenichi Ohmae, a former senior partner in Japan of the global consultancy McKinsey & Company, argues that the internationalization of the four 'Is' -- investment, industry, information technology, and individuals -- has undercut the power of the state. He sees regional economies as the new sources of power and growth in the world economy and society.(f.1) Susan Strange, the leading developer of the discipline of international political economy in Britain, says power has shifted sideways to other national governments and the market has shifted upwards to international entities and nowhere.(f.2) The editors of the Economist disagree with both and contend that, far from withering away, nation-states and governments remain large and dominant actors.(f.3)Despite the varying views in the literature and in the public mind, there clearly has been change. Although politicians of all stripes promise to do much once the levers of power are in their hands, the public is unconvinced. Indications are that people see the national government (and for that matter all governments) as increasingly powerless, ineffectual, and frequently irrelevant for economic and social matters. This may partly explain why the polls suggest a lack of confidence in 'politicians' as a social group; many politicians appear to promise far more than anyone believes they can deliver.The evidence suggests that people are changing their expectations of government. In its year-end poll for 1996, Maclean's magazine tested the 'millennial expectations' of Canadians with a series of questions about the respective roles of the state and markets in 2005 and their attitudes toward these changes. The majority of respondents expected markets to make major inroads into many services that in Canada traditionally have been delivered almost exclusively by the public sector. …