This article addresses the proper role of political science in Canadian universities. The thesis is twofold: first, the main tasks of political scientists are first-rate teaching and reflective inquiry about citizenship: second, in the past few years we have been moving away from this understanding, and remedial action is required. Our delinquency stems mainly from our obsession with “frontier research,” the main result of which is the widespread decline of attentive teaching, which we rationalize with a number of implausible myths. We are primarily responsible for the current state of political science, and only we can remedy it.

Technological progress has brought some political difficulties: we have both too much power and too little control. Francis Bacon, a principal promoter of science and technology, was not naive about the uses to which the conquest of nature would be put; they may not all be good, humane and charitable. He was not uniformly optimistic about the result being “the relief of man's estate,” even though that is the overwhelming rhetorical thrust of his major writings. Bacon actually rejected many of our currently offered “solutions” for controlling science as being hopelessly impolitic and improvident. This is revealed in a little-known chapter, entitled “Daedalus,” in one of his most comprehensive political works, Of the Wisdom of the Ancients. He provides timely lessons for us to consider now, entering the twenty-first century.

Canadian courts have been torn between two constitutionalisms in their interpretation of the application provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The traditional, liberal constitutionalist approach establishes a distinction between public and private realms and between state action and inaction, limiting the Charter's application to the public, governmental sphere of positive legislation and executive conduct. However, the courts have oscillated between this and a postliberal constitutionalism according to which distinctions between public and private and state action and inaction are arbitrary and artificial. This article argues that this clash of constitutionalisms is responsible in large part for the courts' inconsistent and confusing record in interpreting sections 32 and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

This article outlines the pattern of women's participation in the Canadian parliamentary system. The question of interest is whether female members of the House of Commons make a difference in politics and, notably, if they substantively represent women. The basic underlying hypothesis is that women in the Canadian House of Commons make a difference, that is to say, they substantively represent women. However, the impact of women in politics is limited: they do indeed make a difference, but not a drastic one. In this sense, women try to shape the legislative agenda and the legislative discourse in order to promote women's issues more than do men, but their activity in favour of women's concerns remains quite limited from a numerical point of view. To achieve effective results in this study, two methods were employed: a survey given to members of the 35th Canadian Parliament, and a content analysis of the Hansard Index of the House of Commons. Overall, the results presented here provide some support for the substantive argument. On the question of whether women members of the House of Commons make a difference in politics, and, significantly, if they substantively represent women, the answer is generally positive, although it is necessary to qualify this response. Both female and male MPs speak and act to support women's issues in the House of Commons, but these activities remain quantitatively marginal. However, on each aspect considered, the group of female MPs were proportionately more involved in women's issues than their male counterparts.

Recent research has identified three factors as significant determinants of sovereignty support in Quebec: national identity, assessments of the likely impact of sovereignty on Quebec's economy and perceptions of the impact of sovereignty on the French language in Quebec. Drawing on data from the 1992–1993 Canadian Referendum and Election Survey, the article suggests that the latter two factors may not be genuine causes of sovereignty support, but rather rationalizations of other, deeply embedded sentiments. National identity and sovereignty support itself, it is argued, are important determinants of people's expectations concerning the economic and linguistic impacts of sovereignty. However, this may not be equally true across the board. Instead, the influence of economic and language considerations seems to be differentially distributed across the spectrum of national identity. Thus, the rational evaluation of economic and linguistic considerations probably has less leverage over sovereignty support than is usually assumed, and its influence, such as it is, is concentrated in certain sections of the population only.

A little less than two months before the referendum on sovereignty on October 31, 1995, the Quebec government made public a “Preamble” to an eventual “Declaration of Sovereignty.” This document is analyzed in this article as a “foundational narrative,” that is to say as a narrative attempting to make of this event, which represents the accession of Quebec to sovereignty, a “beginning.” The author demonstrates that the document remains caught in a rhetoric which associates itself to what can be called, following the work of Claude Lefort and Marcel Gauchet, the “theologico-political matrix,” which could explain its chilled reception even by sovereigntists. The author asks in conclusion if it is possible to envisage a foundational narrative which would be compatible with the profound logic which governs modernity.

The post-Cold War era has provoked a revival of various implicit as well as explicit returns to Stoic cosmopolitan theory as a possible source of a normative conceptual framework for international relations and global community. This article confronts this revival of interest in Stoicism with an analysis of Cicero's constructive critique of original Stoic conceptions of the world community. Particular attention is paid to the arguments by which Cicero identifies major flaws in the Stoic outlook and establishes the validity of his alternative notion of the “law of nations.” It is argued that Cicero's transformation of Stoicism issues in a more modest but more solid, as well as more civic-spirited, cosmopolitan theory. At the same time, the implications of Cicero's arguments for our understanding of justice altogether are clarified.

This article connects the conflict in Canada over formal constitutional amendments—patriation (1982), the Meech Lake (1987) and the Charlottetown (1992) Accords—with constitutional litigation and interpretation. The authors posit that governments and organized social interests compete with and among themselves for constitutional advantage in both forums of constitutional modification, and that outcomes in each forum have predictable consequences for behaviour in the other. Specifically, they argue that conflicts over the “distinct society” (1987) and “Canada” (1992) clauses are best understood as predictable government attempts to regain constitutional resources lost to Charter-based interest groups during the framing of the “reasonable limitation” clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1980–1981) and its subsequent judicial operationalization—the “Oakes test” (1986).The conflicts over theses various “interpretative clauses” were not just about “symbolic Status” or “conflicting constitutional visions,” but about winning Charter cases and accumulating legal resources. The authors develop the corollary argument that “advocacy scholarship” has played a complementary role to litigation in “public interest” groups' use of the Charter to challenge government policies.

This article addresses the question of the applicability of John Kingdon's theory of agenda-setting to Canadian political life. It examines the extent to which agenda-setting in Canadian governments is routine or discretionary, predictable or unpredictable, and the extent to which it is influenced by events and activities external to itself. The study uses time series data collected on issue mentions related to Native affairs, the constitution, drug abuse, acid rain, the nuclear industry and capital punishment in parliamentary debates and committees between 1977 and 1992. It compares these series to other time series developed from media mentions, violent crime rates, unemployment rates, budget speeches and speeches from the throne, elections and first ministers' conferences over the same period in order to assess the impact of such events on public policy agenda-setting.

It has often been said that the closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations is that democracies do not fight against each other. This study adds to the literature on democratic peace by focusing on the crisis behaviour of democracies and nondemocracies. International Crisis Behavior (ICB) Project data are used to conduct a quantitative analysis of states' crisis activity from 1918 to 1988. Strong support emerges for the three hypotheses of the study. First, it is clear that democracies initiate fewer crises than nondemocracies. However, democracies tend to escalate crises to higher levels of severity. Finally, democracies eventually win the crises in which they become involved. The conclusion is that democratic leaders face strong incentives to “select” winnable crises against nondemocratic states because of the audience costs they face, but when the opponent is another democracy, the domestic audience expects leaders to compromise.

Eric Voegelin's master work is Order and History, published over a period of three decades with the fifth and final volume appearing posthumously in 1987. The focus of attention here is on the first of these volumes, Israel and Revelation (1956), which may be regarded as intellectually the sequel of volumes two and three, since the writing of those volumes (published in 1957) antedates composition of the study of Israel. From the outset, Voegelin makes clear that his concern is with a philosophy of order historically grounded as the primary means of combating the contemporary crisis of human existence, which he identifies with pervasive deformation of consciousness by ideology and the threat of civilization's extinction through totalitarian mass movements. Thus the task is to regain reality through a recovery of the principal experiences upon which man's historical existence is dependent, with both diagnostic and therapeutic intentions. The attention to the historical record is a means of anamnetically overcoming the social amnesia that threatens to extinguish human existence as it has emerged over millennia back to the Stone Age. Diagnosis and therapy are intended to go hand in hand, since the eclipse of reality, and especially of its highest and hegemonic dimension, the divine Ground of being, in favour of various substitute grounds, is the principal danger to be understood and addressed. The enduring experience of open existence in history is glimpsed, in man's continual Exodus in loving partnership with God, in tension toward the mystery symbolized in eschatological fulfillment.

In Canada as elsewhere, representative democracy is under attack by both populists and rights advocates. The populist challenge comes mainly from Preston Manning's wing of the Reform party. The rights-based challenge is grounded on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These two challenges are different in obvious ways, but from the point of view of representative government—and ultimately of liberal democratic constitutionalism—what they have in common outweighs their differences. What they have in common is the appeal to a mystical being or icon beyond ordinary politics. In effect, the People or Rights become what God was to pre-liberal theocratic politics: a transpolitical trump on ordinary political division, a way of placing opponents “beyond the pale,” a demand for unattainable purity in public life and policy. While bills of rights and populism appear to flow, respectively, from the liberalism and the democracy of liberal democracy, they are, in fact, vehicles for precisely the kind of politics liberal democracy was designed to overcome. Representative government, not populism or entrenched rights, was at the heart of the “new science of politics” designed to make liberal democracy possible. Representative institutions, properly arranged in a system of checks and balances, were a way of blending liberalism with democracy, giving each its due, but indirectly, so that neither would be taken to self-destructive extremes. Populism and the judicialized politics of rights threaten to dissolve this salutary blend, at the cost of liberal democratic constitutionalism.

A number of theoretical propositions are advanced through a consideration of the shifting strategies of feminist organizations in Canada during three rounds of constitutional negotiations. First, interest-oriented formulations alone do not capture the intricacies of representation. Representation should be conceived more broadly in terms not just of interest, but also of identity. Second, there are multiple routes to representation that include intersecting forms of representation. Finally, “special interest” designations can be used to undercut the democratic potential of collective mobilization.

In 1996 the Alberta Court of Appeal struck down election spending limits for individuals, interest groups, corporations and unions for violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These spending restrictions were part of a complex regulatory regime which sought to promote fairness by controlling the election spending of candidates and parties. Although this decision was not appealed to the nation's highest court, the Supreme Court disapproved the Alberta ruling in an unrelated decision. This suggests that spending limits are justifiable under the Charter. Yet if new legislation is not introduced, the Alberta decision will continue to govern election conduct throughout the country and could undermine the democratic ideal of citizens participating in fair terms in the act of self-governance.

This article examines the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on social movement politics in Canada using the case of the gay liberation movement. Drawing on the comparative social movement literature, the article situates equality seeking as a strategy and meaning game that legitimates new political identities and that is aimed at mobilizing a movement's constituency. The article demonstrates that equality seeking was a strategy and a meaning frame that was deployed in the lesbian and gay rights movement (exemplified by the gay liberation movement of the 1970s) prior to the entrenchment of the Charter. Thus, it concludes that some claims about the Charter's impact on social movement organizing have been exaggerated.

Policy institutes, or think tanks, have become increasingly visible on the political landscape. However, their policy role has varied in different countries. This article seeks to explain why, compared to think tanks in the United States, Canadian institutes have maintained a relatively modest presence in the policy-making community. Although many Canadian think tanks have made concerted efforts to replicate the strategies of their American counterparts, they have had far less success employing them in an effective and meaningful manner. While many American think tanks have both the resources and the opportunities to convey ideas to policy makers, Canadian organizations must overcome institutional, cultural and economic barriers before they can play a decisive role in policy-making circles. This article also makes reference to the experiences of think tanks in some parliamentary systems, notably Great Britain, to demonstrate that although these barriers are formidable and need to be addressed in some detail, they are not insurmountable.

Does the rise of new social movements (NSMs) represent a challenge for the traditional political parties in Quebec? Though this question can be answered from many perspectives, this study focuses on the programmatic aspect of this challenge that encompasses both a number of new societal issues and adherence to new values promoted by the NSMs. More precisely, it addresses the following questions: have the issues of environment and the respect of women's rights been already integrated into the political platforms of the two mainstream political parties in Quebec, the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Parti Québécois? Can the activists of those political parties be distinguished from the members of environmental and women's rights movements with regard to their values? On the one hand, both the Liberal party and the Parti Québécois have for a long time incorporated into their platforms issues linked to the defence of the environment and to the promotion of gender equality. On the other hand, the authors observe that the adherence to postmaterialist values is stronger in the NSMs than in the parties. One main conclusion is that one cannot compare adherence to the new values in the parties and the NSMs as two homogeneous blocs. Instead, the authors see four distinct organizations. They encourage further research to examine other dimensions of the problem such as the organizational aspect of the political challenge posed by the rise of NSMs.

Little research provides concrete evidence of relationships between socialization by the women's movement and support for feminism and equality. Support for these issues has increased in Canada since the early 1970s, and using cohort analysis this study demonstrates clear generational differences in this support. The greatest support appears among women's movement and post-women's-movement cohorts. Furthermore, this article identifies gender differences on feminism and equality not appearing in the aggregate data. These differences increase with added controls for education and employment, suggesting links between women's attitudes and the development of a gender consciousness.

This article underlines three principles of reference that renew discourse on and comprehension of the role of the state in social protection towards unemployed people. At a certain level of abstraction, those principles of reference are present in many countries. They lead to label and to understand situations in different terms of which we were familiar during the Welfare State apogee. At the same time, they permit and open up to various political orientations and mechanisms of implementation. This dualism is emphasized. Four countries are referenced for this discussion: Canada, France, Germany and Sweden. The study considers the way in which problems are stated in their principles and the implementation of programmes. Policies and programmes implemented reveal logics of intervention which suggest different ways to consider the articulation between the « integrated area » and the « excluded area » of the society.

This study deals with the question of economic voting in Canada, notably that the electoral impact of economic perceptions with regard to the performance of the federal government has not been homogeneous among the whole Canadian electorate during the period of Liberal dominance in Quebec. Contrary to our Findings on voters in other provinces, francophone Quebeckers did not vote according to their judgment of the government on economic matters, their fidelity to the Liberal party having inhibited them in this respect. These results suggest that the absence of economic voting in Quebec during the Liberal regime may clarify, at least in part, the puzzling conclusions of previous research, that show a fragile relationship between the economy and the electoral outcomes in Canada. These findings break new ground for a better understanding of the specific electoral rationality used by minorities in long-established democracies.