Resolved: Canada's constitution is the most democratic of the three countries we are studying.

After doing a bit more reading, I discovered that the word democracy has come to mean "liberal democracy" in practice, so these kids were right to include stuff about individual rights and freedoms in their arguments. It was hard to narrow down what the most important points were - I had intended to include something about the provisions provided to amend constitutions, but didn't. I think it turned out okay anyway. It's only worth 5% of our mark, so probably did not merit quite the time commitment I've put into it, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist these days and wanted to be as thorough as possible. Here's what I posted:

What stands out about the constitution of Canada as compared to that of the United States are the guidelines regarding how Canadians elect a representative government. Every ten years, the Canadian government is required to conduct a census of the population, and the proportion of elected officials per province is adjusted according to population numbers. The nominated officials at the local level represent a vote for Prime Minister at the national level, regardless of overall popular vote in a particular province. Accordingly, we can be assured that the government elected at the federal level is truly representative of the population, which is the fundamental concept of democracy.

In the United States, by comparison, this type of actual representative government is not seen. The individual states are also awarded a certain number of “Elector” votes based on the population, but the votes of these nominees for the office of President are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state in question. Due to the large variations in population size and the number of electoral votes given to different states, this can result in the office of President being awarded to a candidate who did not receive a majority of the votes nation-wide. This does not qualify as representative government.

Another important aspect of a democracy is the protection of individual liberties of citizens. The Canadian constitution, with the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, is particularly strong in advancing the equal protection of all Canadians, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, language, colour, or disability. A clause regarding the official languages of Canada gives broad protection for both English- and French-speaking citizens. Another re-affirms the rights of Aboriginal peoples.

The constitution of Mexico, by contrast, is not nearly so explicit in expanding on the rights of its citizens. Rather, it emphasizes the “obligations” of Mexicans more than “prerogatives”. Typical rights are recognized: Mexicans are permitted to vote, to bear arms, and to freely associate. In comparison with the Canadian constitution, however, the rights of the individual seem to be secondary to one’s obligations to the state, for instance, the mandatory military service imposed on every person.

The Mexican constitution elaborates more on the limits to particular freedoms than the freedoms themselves. It actually singles out the Church in several areas, for instance in regard to land ownership. The limits on property ownership as pertaining specifically to religious institutions are discriminatory.

For the above reasons, it is clear that the constitution of Canada goes further to protect its citizens and to ensure the formation of a representative government. The Canadian constitution is the most democratic of the three countries we are studying.

  | ¶ 8:52 p.m.