Tiendra–t–on, dans quelques années, pour exemplaire de la démocratie représentative la séance du 28 juin 1999 au cours de laquelle 745 députés et sénateurs, sur 836 votants, réunis en congrès à Versailles, ont ratifié des modifications aux articles 3 et 4 de la Constitution frančaise? Ces modifications stipulent que désormais “la loi favorise 1'égal accès des femmes et des hommes aux mandats électoraux et aux fonctions électives” et que les partis et groupements politiques “contribuent à la mise en oeuvre [de ce] principe”. Les représentants du peuple frančais — dont 90 pour cent sont de sexe masculin — auraient en effet fourni à cette occasion une illustration particulièrement magistrale du fait que l'appartenance de sexe n'entre pas en ligne de compte quand il s'agit de promouvoir le bien public! Et pourtant, après la promulgation des lois d'application, nombre d'entre eux seront empêchés de se présenter comme candidats afin de laisser la place à des candidates. Le score (89%) réussi au Congrès de Versailles dépasse les attentes populaires (un peu plus de 70% de Frančaises et de Frančais sont, selon les sondages, favorables à la parité.) I1 reflète ma1 la vivacité des débats qui ont entouré la proposition de cette mesure. Je ne reviendrai pas sur les débats qui continuent d'opposer féministes paritaristes et anti-paritaristes. Je prendrai ici en considération les positions d'auteurs masculins.

The constitution and constitutional discourse have loomed large on the agenda of Canadian political science since the 1960s. Over time, political scientists have approached the constitution and its role in society from a number of angles reflecting perceived primary axes of power and dominant cleavages within Canadian society. Thus, federalism, regionalism and British-French dualism have been prominent in explorations of constitutional politics, while such questions as the relation of the constitution to class or gender have been less central.

The interest of philosophers in the politics of cultural identity was one of the most interesting developments in this field in the 1990s. Their involvement in an area dominated by historians, sociologists, political scientists and anthropologists2 has been particularly evident in Canada where scholars such as Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor have shaped the way many academics understand cultural identity politics. These theorists have favoured a cultural approach to the phenomenon. They have established frameworks for understanding and managing multiethnic states that stress the inherent strength and meaning of culture.

American political theorist Michael Walzer is a prominent provocative thinker on the morality of warfare. His landmark study, Just and Unjust Wars, remains a modem classic. But we might ask: given that this oft–cited work first appeared in 1977, what, if any, relevance does it have for us today? Consider, for instance, Walzer's controversial account of jus ad bellum, a term traditionally referring to the justice of resorting to war.

Case studies of municipal elections hold little appeal for students of local government. Recent scholarship for the most part has focused on gender or the election of councillors, but studies of mayoral contests are virtually non–existent. This is somewhat surprising, considering the constituent size of several large Canadian municipalities where local government leaders are directly elected. If indeed local government is the level closest to the people, a study of municipal electoral behaviour in large cities can provide insights about the relationship between local politicians and the electorate.

Two questions have dominated the modern study of politics. How do political systems become democratic? And how, supposing they have managed to become democratic, do they manage to remain so? As yet, there is no agreement on the answer to the first question. For a generation, however, there has been consensus on a core part of the answer to the second. In democratic polities, political elites have come to consensus in support of democratic rights, and in times of political stress this elite consensus has served as a bulwark protecting citizens' liberties.

Underlying Matthew Mendelsohn's plea for popular participation in constitution making is a tradition of democratic thought that Jennifer Smith calls “anti–partyism.” This is not the place to describe types of anti–partyism, or trace its roots in Rousseau; I will say only that in Canadian history, and still today, anti–partyism is critical of parliamentary government. In the mid–nineteenth century its proponents argued for the rule of the demos, “the many”; they called their philosophy, “democracy.” They were not calling merely for an extension of the franchise; they criticized the very idea of representative and responsible institutions, contending that responsible parliamentary government empowered “the few” at the expense of “the many.” Today, most scholars regard parliamentary government as a form of democracy, and usually remember that “democracy” has more than one definition. In his article, Mendelsohn unfortunately uses “democracy” to describe only views inclining to anti–partyism.

Matthew Mendelsohn's “Public Brokerage: Constitutional Reform and the Accommodation of Mass Publics” offers an alternative to what he calls the “conventional wisdom” surrounding Canada's intractable constitutional quagmire. Unlike most analysts of the Canadian constitutional process, Mendelsohn advocates greater public input into constitution making. Indeed, he suggests that the principal problem lies with elites, not mass publics. Limiting the role of “elites” in “accommodation,” he argues, allows for the possibility of constitutional reconciliation. Mendelsohn, then, provides a service by infusing some fresh ideas into Canada's constitutional debate.

I thank the JOURNAL for this opportunity to continue a dialogue on constitutional paralysis in Canada. The disagreements between myself and Janet Ajzenstat and Michael Lusztig underline some of the tensions in Canadian political science and have important implications for how we conceive processes of constitutional change.

Recensions / Reviews