This article argues that imperialism and the Crown have determined the development of Canadian federalism. It maintains that the prominence of the provinces, the most distinctive feature of this country's federal system, is traceable, first, to the empire's evolution in the last century and its dissolution in this and, second, to the capacity of the Crown to endow the provinces with unlimited potential for action in areas of jurisdiction not assigned to Parliament. The structuring effect of these primary influences is examined from several perspectives: geographic, economic, social and constitutional. The article concludes that the provinces have been the true beneficiaries of Canada's heritage of empire and Crown.

In this article the author proposes a schema conception of belief system structure, and employs confirmatory factor analysis, to investigate the connections between Left/Right Orientation and a range of policy-centred and operation-of-government attitudes. Contrary to the results of some earlier research, this study finds that Canadians' morality beliefs are moderately consistent with their evaluations of left and right. The examination includes education and class differences in the ideological integration and range of political belief systems. The major difference between workers and other classes is congruent with the notion that workers possess a dualistic political consciousness.

Government in the Northwest Territories (NWT) of Canada is structured on the cabinet-parliamentary model and follows most of the principles of British-style “responsible government.” The territorial assembly, however, differs in two fundamental ways from the traditional parliamentary model: it has no political parties, and a majority of its members are natives, whose political culture is far removed from the tenets underlying British parliamentarism. This article examines the interplay of structure and culture in the NWT Legislative Assembly, through an evaluation of the so-called “consensus government” system. Although cabinet is clearly pre-eminent, private members have unusual influence in the NWT. More generally, distinctive Northern adaptations to the British model—unique parliamentary structures and procedures—are central to the workings of the legislature. In its internal operations, the NWT Assembly is found to have successfully adapted important elements of British parliamentarism to Northern circumstances, though its legitimacy within the native population remains problematic.

This article analyzes the internal communications between interest group leaders and their memberships. The case is Bill C-22, which increased patent protection for Pharmaceuticals in Canada. The object was to test for differences between “material” groups seeking benefits for their members and “purposive” groups pursuing policies which will benefit others. Significant differences were found in the kinds of appeals made by group leaders. This implies that it can be realistic and useful to distinguish between types of group according to their purposes and the motivations of their members. The findings also provide some insight into the language of policy debates and allow some speculation about the perennial question of why people adhere to large public-interest groups.

This article is a study of the first recorded text of political philosophy, the Debate on the Regimes in Book III of the untitled work by Herodotus. The central methodological postulate of this study is that the Debate must be approached as one approaches the other stories in the work: the reader has to reflect on the arguments made here in light of the dramatic context in which they are made. In particular, the author suggests that the Debate is essentially a story about democracy since the discussion takes place within the framework of what are clearly democratic institutions: there is a sort of assembly where resolutions are debated and decision are taken by majority vote. The drama surrounding the Debate thus conveys to us Herodotus' own thoughts about the character of democracy.

Aristotle gives the classical definition of political rule as the kind of rule appropriate for free and equal persons. This concept of political rule is complicated, however, by the fact that, even in what Aristotle calls a free and equal association, the ruler is separated from the ruled by his possession of the virtue of prudence. This article explores the relation between political rule and prudence in Aristotle's writings, and considers particularly the case of political rule between men and women. Though Aristotle characterizes the proper relation between men and women as a free and equal one, he distinguishes the male/female political relation from the more general political relation by saying that men are naturally more fit to rule than women. We are interested in whether Aristotle excludes women from political rule because he thinks that women lack the potential for the virtue of prudence.

The growing economic liberalization within, and interdependence between, modern states have limited the ability of state administrations effectively to pursue public policies without the “co-operation and self-restraint” of their citizens. The concept of citizenship will thus increasingly be a battlefield in the struggle for ideological hegemony between major political interests who attempt to define citizenship to enhance their respective political agendas. These debates over the nature of citizenship have been articulated most clearly in the United Kingdom, where the Speaker's Commission on Citizenship (report released in September 1990) has been a focal point in the discussion of what citizenship in a modern state entails.

This article examines the sensitivity of Arab states to the political and ideological repercussions of the Palestine issue by focussing upon Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It suggests that the policies of Arab regimes towards the Palestine issue have been substantially shaped by historical patterns of state formation, and by the gradual consolidation of the Arab state system. This has served to “harden” the Arab territorial state, creating conditions under which Arab states are increasingly (if only partially) insulated from the transnational effects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.