Despite remarkable similarities, little attempt has been made to compare the political development of colonial-era Australia and Canada. Both nations were born as British colonies and used violent and non-violent means to agitate for democratic freedoms. Republicanism and Responsible Government explores how these sister colonies transformed the very nature of the British Empire by insisting on democratic self-rule. Focusing on the middle of the nineteenth century, Benjamin Jones explores key points in colonial Australian and Canadian history - Canada's Rebellions of 1837-38 and the Durham Report, and Australia's anti-transportation movement and the Eureka Stockade. Previously, historians have looked to liberalism when explaining radicalism and democratization. Jones, however, contends that Canadian and Australian radicals and reformers were influenced by the ancient political philosophy of civic republicanism, with its focus on collectivism, civic duty, and virtue. William Lyon Mackenzie and John Dunmore Lang, he argues, did not champion republicanism to achieve individual rights but to create a virtuous society free from the corruption they saw in the status quo. Republicanism and Responsible Government challenges traditional interpretations of key events in Australian and Canadian history and shows that even though both nations remain constitutional monarchies, republican ideas have shaped their foundations since the earliest days of settlement.

This book explores the idea of responsible government in East Asia, arguing that many recent governance crises have resulted from responsibility failures on a huge scale. It distinguishes between accountability, which it argues has been overemphasised recently, and responsibility, which it argues goes beyond accountability, true responsible government involving the actor in feeling liable for and taking responsibility for his or her actions. It shows how historically the concept of responsibility is more embedded in political discussions in Asia, whereas the concepts of democracy and accountability are more embedded in the intellectual traditions of Europe, but that the challenges of revolution and post-revolution, decolonization and post-colonization and neo-liberal globalization have complicated matters. Drawing on a wide range of case studies from East Asia, and relating the concepts discussed to political theory, ethics and social psychology, the book shows how actors in government and society interact to deliberate, produce or distract from the practice and perception of “responsible government”, and suggests how the concept of “responsible government”, better defined, might be encouraged to produce better governance.

This book looks at responsible government under the Australian Constitution. It undertakes a detailed examination of the history leading to the incorporation of responsible government into the Constitution, examining the political history and constitutional ideas which informed the framers' views. It draws on this history to develop a theory of responsible government and explore its implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and the structure of modern government in Australia. The book fills a major gap in our knowledge of the intellectual background of the Australian Constitution by explaining the constitutional ideas that have shaped the text and structure of the Australian Constitution. It contributes to worldwide debates about constitutional interpretation by showing how rigorous use of history can lead to novel interpretations of constitutions without being tied to the 'dead hands of the founders'.

Originally published in 1964, this book remains a seminal source for contemporary political scientists and offers exceptional insights into notions of responsibility. Wahlke (1971) describes it as ‘one of the best analytical surveys of representation.’ The book is a compact and critical essay on the British constitution which reveals the realities of British politics in the second half of the 20th Century by showing the extent to which theory and reality agree and differ.

Americans have the best constitutional principles: limited government, the rule of law, and the God-given rights of men and women. Yet what attitudes do the American people hold toward their government today? Chaos, confusion, contempt and choler. The reason Americans feel that way, contends author Patrick J. McGrath, is that our “divided” structure of government means no one is responsible for the errors that do come along. McGrath says it’s time to consider the nearly-heretical idea that our structure of government is fundamentally flawed. There is a better way, McGrath contends, one that already works in many other countries – the Cabinet or Responsible form of Government. After illustrating the problem and the way to a solution, McGrath presents his proposal for a new Constitution based on a Responsible Government structure combined with American constitutional principles.