The author explores the socio-political implications of the rule of the incompatibility of ministerial functions with the member's mandate in political systems of the parliamentary type. Taking as a hypothesis recourse to the aforesaid norm of the system, he tries to highlight the sociological factors that shape the decision-making capacity of the system's authorities as well as the sources of legitimation of their value-allocating functions.

At the conceptual level the model rests on the identification of five variables: the incompatibility rule (A); strengthening of the executive (B); technological rationality (C); decision-making capacity (D); and sociological legitimacy (E). He explores, in another connection, different linkages between these variables, accenting particularly the relations A → D and A → E.

From the methodological point of view, the present analysis relies on both inductive and deductive reasoning. Resting, in effect, on an observation of the French case which reduces incidents to their historical-political essentials and which separates out certain general socio-political aspects of the incompatibility rule, the author permits himself some generalizations expressed in terms of provisional hypotheses, the verification of which, it should be emphasized, would require “longitudinal” historical-political studies and comparative analyses of decision-making.

In conclusion, the author states that the advance in schematization which this study represents is limited to the formulation of a “pre-model” whose essential purpose is to make available to those who have become interested in the sociological analysis of the components of this problem the variables which seem to permit the ultimate reconstitution of the observed phenomenon: the exploration of the specific way in which the designated variables are related to one another, the identification of the rules covering their interaction, and evaluation of the intensity of factors which affect them constitute the principal levels of development of this theoretical framework.

The first systematic correlation of socio-demographic factors and party preference in Canadian federal elections was made by Escott Reid in 1933. No expansion or even replication followed until the mid-1950s when John Meisel, using data obtained by sample survey of individuals, continued the enquiry begun by Reid on the basis of aggregate statistics. Since then – especially after 1960 – many data have been collected and some studies made on the links between party preference and factors such as religion, language, region, social class, and age. But these studies, even for the variables that have received most attention – religion, region, and class, for example – give us findings which remain scattered over time and space, like building materials on different construction sites. We need an overall view of the relationship between socio-demographic factors and party preference – if only to facilitate the interpretation of more refined but narrowly focussed studies; and we need such a view to extend over more than one or two elections.

Modestly impressive by its lack of mention both in a recent examination of the political leadership of the prime minister and the more traditional texts of the Canadian political process, is serious notice of environmental limitations on the prime ministerial prerogative in dissolving the Legislative Assembly and announcing a general election.

Apart from the rather engaging phrasing of its title, Macpherson's reply to my criticisms of him must be judged a disappointment. For it either misses or entirely avoids their point.

I must remind Macpherson that it is he, not I, who conceives the task of political theory as one which deduces political obligation from the nature of man, or derives obligation from fact. Consequently, it is incumbent upon him to show how this is to be done. He now claims that it can be done and that it is not necessary to do it. In the former case it is a problem requiring resolution; in the latter a pseudo-problem which can be ignored.