In a recent analysis of the role and office of premier in Australia, Shaman, Hughes and Tuffin demonstrate that its fundamental characteristics derive ‘not from interaction with the broader political context but from the inherent logic of [the] constitutional system’. In this paper we test this argument by comparing Australian state premiers with their Canadian provincial counterparts. If Shaman et al. are correct about the institutional imperatives of leadership careers, Canadians and Australians ought to have similar career patterns given the basic similarities between the two systems. Where differences exist, they may be explained by the selection processes used by parties to choose their leaders.
|Number of pages||8|
|Publication status||Published - 1990|