05 Aug
05Aug

Until last fall, the vast majority of Canadians had no memory of a monarch other than Queen Elizabeth II.  Her unprecedented tenure on the throne earned her the respect of many; even republicans grudgingly accepted that their cause couldn’t be advanced while she reigned.  Polls told us that any enthusiasm for her son as King was tepid indeed. 

In addition to doubts about King Charles, republicans’ arguments include that the monarchy is a colonial holdover; that it is outdated and irrelevant; that inheriting a position of leadership is anathema to democracy, and so on. They would prefer an elected head of state, presumably someone who is a Canadian citizen by birth or choice.

In constitutional terms, the personality of the monarch is irrelevant.  The Crown is the entity upon which our constitution is built. 

In our Westminster system the head of state is separate from the head of government (the prime minister).  In other systems, such as the United States, the president is both head of state and head of government.  To cite just one example, the legal proceedings against Richard Nixon over the Watergate affair led to a dangerous undermining of Americans’ faith in their system.  In Canada similar behaviour by a prime minister would be seen as unsurprising, just another grubby politician, and the PM would likely be turfed by his party before the next election. 

There is no failsafe in the American system as it functions today.  Whatever the merits of the charges against Donald Trump, the partisan divide could not be overcome.  His impeachments did little to reassure Americans about justice or due process. 

The Westminster system has a failsafe in a sovereign who is emphatically apart from partisan politics.  Consider Australia.  In 1975 the Governor General dismissed the government of PM Gough Whitlam.  The use of this “nuclear option” remains controversial, but it shows that a PM can be held accountable.  This is particularly important in the Canadian context, where the prime minister has been described as the leader with the greatest power among western democracies.  Not in the sense that the individual is a formidable world leader, but rather that their control over politics and policy is unmatched in any other country.  

The nature of today’s Parliament means that MPs have effectively no ability to impose accountability on a majority government. The PM effectively appoints the Governor General, who serves as the monarch’s representative in Canada when the monarch isn’t here.  Ideally the GG is non-partisan and non-political.  So we got Ed Schreyer, who was NDP Premier of Manitoba.  Jeanne Sauve, who we elected as a Liberal MP.  Adrienne Clarkson, who was a mainstay of the CBC.  They may have served well, but in a crisis people might be forgiven for seeing partisan motivation. 

So appointing a head of state probably isn’t the best way to go.  Naturally the alternative is to elect them.  Does anyone win an election without a party machine backing them?  Rarely.  How do you find a candidate who doesn’t have a partisan background, who wants the job, and knows the constitution?  A tall order indeed. 

The late Queen was known to always be “on top of her brief.”  She kept herself informed on goings on in Canada.   She never expressed a party preference.  Given his long apprenticeship, it’s reasonable to assume that the King absorbed those lessons. 

If we want a head of state who knows the constitution and is free of the taint of politics, it seems like we already have one.

Comments
* The email will not be published on the website.