Brian Mulroney a-t-il politisé les sous-ministres?

Sommaire: Cette étude teste s'il est vrai, comme on l'a prétendu, que le gouvernement Mulroney a procédéà un remaniement sans précédent du personnel des sousministres lors de son premier mandat. Il s'agit d'établir si 1) le remaniement a été exceptionnellement important comparativement aux pratiques antérieures à l'arrivée des conservateurs et 2) si ce remaniement a marqué une politisation accrue des sous-ministres dans le sens que le gouvernement conservateur aurait donné la préférence aux hauts fonctionnaires qui partagent ses orientations idéologiques ou ses programmes d'action. Deux techniques d'enquête ont été mises à contribution: l'indice de mobilité des sous-ministres calculé en nombre de départs, nominations et mutations, et une série d'entretiens semi-directifs conduite auprès de hauts fonctionnaires et de responsables politiques. La conclusion est que les sous-ministres ont échappéà une politisation accrue de leur fonction même s'ils ont été soumis à un remaniement d'une ampleur exceptionnelle lors des deux premières années du mandat conservateur. Abstract: This study examines whether it is true, as some have claimed, that the Mulroney government did an unprecedented reorganization of the deputy ministers' staff during its first term. We had to determine whether the reorganization was exceptionally extensive as compared to the practices prior to the Conservatives, and whether that reorganization constituted greater politicization of the deputy ministers in the sense that the Conservative government would have given preference to senior officials who supported its ideology and action programs. Two investigative techniques were used: the mobility index of deputy ministers, based on the number of departures, appointments and transfers, and a series of semi-focused interviews with senior officials and politicians. The conclusion is that the deputy ministers escaped increased politicization of their role even though they underwent an exceptionally deep reorganization during the first two years of the Conservative mandate.     

Spectres of Coke: Judicial Supervision as a Revolutionary Inheritance

Sir Edward Coke is known for having played a central role in establishing the power of the common law courts to exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the executive/administration. Coke is usually praised in the literature for his boldness in doing this, whilst he is at the same time censured for having dared to suggest that this jurisdiction should be a very wide one. This essay questions the inheritance of judicial supervision and enquires whether there may be a secret to uncover in Coke’s texts. Referring to Coke’s Institutes, it is suggested that the wide jurisdiction of the common law courts that Coke advanced, is linked to and should be understood in light of Coke’s pronouncements in the epigrams on law and justice. Judicial supervision, according to this reading of Coke, involves not only a necessarily limited jurisdiction in accordance with law, but also the desire for an unlimited jurisdiction, which corresponds with Derrida’s analysis of justice and law. This reading of Coke, it is suggested, calls on us to view judicial supervision as revolutionary in nature, which requires of the courts to rethink fundamentally the way in which they exercise their supervisory function.