“Judges can now overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where these decisions do not accord with the way judges interpret the charter. This is undemocratic.” (Charlton/Barker, Crosscurrents, Contemporary Political Issues p. 99) Martin argues that judges have the power and authority to overturn any decisions made by social representatives. This argument provides an underlying assumption that judges take away democracy and that the Charter has given them too much power. In addition, Martin argues that there is a strong tension between democracy and liberalism. It is because of this that the Charter, being a “liberal document” (p. 99) is one-sided. This claim is completely opinion based and may be hazardous when stated within any courtroom. Martin’s underlying assumption of the definition of democracy is that democracy is collective. In reference to the Americanization of the Charter, Martin states that, “Our collective sense of ourselves, and our idea of responsibility for each other and the society we share, has been seriously weakened.” (P. 101) His entire argument regarding the Americanization of the Canadian Charter is quite questionable in itself. “The basis for my assertion about the Americanizing effects of the Charter is a recognition that, historically and culturally, the Charter is an American document.” (P. 100) Here, Martin gives the underlying assumption that not only is the Charter Americanized but also the Americanization has, in his opinion, contributed to the undemocratic laws stated in the Charter. This argument is invalid because America is a democratic society and this therefore makes this argument irrelevant to his case. The overall quality of his arguments is inferior to those made by Philip Bryden.
The general structure of this essay is very traditional. The argument is introduced, stated and restated. His style of writing is argumentative but also overly critical and that can often be dangerous. The format is less formal when compared to Philip Bryden’s due to the fact that it is very opinion based. Subheadings are used before each paragraph but are not needed. They interrupt the overall flow of the essay. However, the content is very clear and the underlying assumptions are easily interpreted. Martin’s tone is very argumentative. Overall, the structure is acceptable but quite basic.
Philip L. Bryden demonstrates a very different style when stating his argument. He addresses each of Martin’s arguments, with a very direct approach. His claims are factual, rather than opinion-based and they are concrete. In response to Martin’s statement that the Charter was antidemocratic, he argues that Martin’s evidence for this was lacking and one-sided. “Like most half-truths, however, it hides more than it reveals.” (P. 103) When Martin claimed that judges determine futures and may overturn any policy decisions made by elected representatives, Bryden claimed that Martin was over generalising. “Where the argument begins to mislead is when its proponents assume that because some judges have had difficulty meeting this challenge in the past, the whole enterprise is doomed to failure.” (P. 103) In response to Martin’s argument regarding a tension between liberalism and democracy , Bryden believes that Martin has made a serious error. The error lies within Martin’s claim that “...majority rule is or ought to be, all that modern democratic government is all about.” (P. 104) Bryden believes in contrast, that the Canadian style of debating issues and accepting the decisions of the courts “.. are at the very heart of the democratic government in Canada.” (p. 104) He puts forth the underlying assumption that democracy is not about a collective society, but in contrast is, about every individual’s voice being heard in contribution to a democratic society. Bryden believes that the upholding of individuality, which includes social groups have enhanced the quality of Canadian democracy. “ The more subtle but a significant point on which Professor Martin and I disagree is that he seems to use the term ‘Americanization’ as a sort of shorthand for most of what he doesn’t like in contemporary Canadian political life.” (P. 106) Bryden disagrees with Martins argument regarding the Americanization of the Charter entirely. He claims correctly that the United States is a democratic society and therefore even if America did influence the basic outline of the Charter, they did not contribute to an antidemocratic Canadian government. He believes that Martin is blaming the U. S. for Canadian political issues. Bryden clearly displays the irrelevance of Martin’s argument regarding the Americanization of Canada
The structure of Bryden’s essay is quite different from that of Martin’s. It provides a large array of facts and is easy to comprehend. It addresses all of the prior arguments made by Martin, assesses them and then provides a counter argument for each. Bryden’s overall tone is very strong and filled with confidence. Traces of arrogance are displayed throughout his writing. His counter-arguments are thorough and he provides more evidence to validate them when compared to the arguments made by Robert Martin. His underlying assumptions are both clearly expressed and are more justifiable as he provides evidence behind each assumption. The format of his essay is very formal and the overall flow is nicely paced. His style is opinionated, but he provides supporting arguments. Bryden provides a strong argument with assumptions that are easily interpreted.
When discovering that both of the debaters have different underlying assumptions of what the definition of democracy is, it is not hard to understand why the two individuals have such opposing views on whether or not the Charter is antidemocratic or not. Robert Martin believes that the definition of democracy involves a collective society. Philip Bryden argues that individualism is what contributes to the positive aspects of democracy. Each individual has presented his views on whether the Charter is democratic or antidemocratic. However, Philip Bryden’s is the more concrete claim of the two. He addresses all of Martin’s arguments and provides a valid counter-argument for each. Overall, the facts, opinions, and structure of his essay contribute in providing a stronger argument.
- Dena Jackson
What is The Definition of Democracy?
Politics Essay # 1
A Critical assessment of opposing arguments regarding,
Is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Antidemocratic?
Crosscurrents, Contemporary Political Issues
Charlton and Barker
Dena Jackson
POLS 110 A
Prof. Jonathan Rose
October 20, 2003
