Should Canada Abolish the Monarchy? My dollar's worth on the Subject, from a Subject.
The Toronto Star’s “Saturday Debate” this week was about whether Canada should abolish the monarchy. I suddenly got an urge to respond on this topic. It relates to subjects I have thought a lot about.
However, while my handy little paywall bypasser lets me read most content on that august publication, I cannot get through to leave my own comment on the Toronto Star’s Saturday debate. So this goes straight to my little blog/social media empire.
Find the inspiration for my fulminations here, if you can get through the paywall; https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/the-saturday-debate/2021/03/13/yes.html?source=newsletter&utm_content=a01&utm_source=ts_sa&utm_medium=email&utm_email=CF7081A7105AD1558A6D9757E0DB38D5&utm_campaign=sd_48382
Abolishing the monarchy; I have been hearing this since the 1960s. It is really a nothing debate. What is worth commenting on here is the inability of either the yes or no to think clearly about it.
To champion the Yes side, the Star gave us a typical 2020s “woke” type of fool who turns it all into the riff about “colonialism” and aboriginal rights, which the present monarchy has nothing to do with. For the No, we are served up same the peurile riff about the monarchy being somehow a guarantee of stability, which we have heard from time immemorial. It is really a string of unfalsifiable claims.
The real point of discussion here is; what do you replace the monarchy with, and how? Other British settler states have the same issue. The Australians in particular have looked into getting rid of Lizzie Windsor and decided that there is no alternative that everyone could agree on.
Of course in all countries with this particular model, talking about replacing the Queen is really talking about replacing the Governor General. You also have to find an alternative to all the provincial Lieutenants Governor.
We could easily replace the GG with an elected ceremonial president as many other former British colonies have done. Ireland is a good example. Or, we could go on letting the current prime minister appoint our titular head of state. The latter option has not worked well recently.
In the past we have had problems whenever the GG has had to actually do anything. Basically, He/She is there to break a deadlock when the parliamentary process breaks down. Because He/She is essentially a political appointee, whenever the GG resolves an impasse by calling or not calling a new election, or appointing a new prime minister, it creates a controversy.
The question is whether there is any process of choosing a head of state which would insure the office is seen as truly impartial. Considering the great expense of elections, we may not want to hold one just to elect the president. If we did, someone would have to run for the office. He/She would have to raise some money and build an organization, or be supported by some organization or party. That is not a way of assuring the public about the neutrality of the office.
We could have the Canadian Prez appointed by some other institution, like the senate or supreme court. Both of these also have the problem of being political appointments. This brings us to the basic problem of government in Canada. We have these out of date and increasingly unworkable institutions from colonial times, and no way of reforming them.
If we tried to replace the Queen, we would get some politician’s idea of a replacement. It would be about increasing the power of some person or faction that is powerful at the moment, and would likely be a mess. This is the same with every other kind of governmental reform, of the senate, local government, voting systems, or whatever.
So it is seen that we are not going to solve the monarchy problem until it is possible to launch a comprehensive reform of government institutions. That will only come from below and from outside the existing political process. That sounds a lot like a revolution, doesn’t it?
The irony of it is that the Queen or her successors are unlikely to be very bothered about being deposed as sovereign over Canada. Of course we are not going to come across an ocean to put her and her relative’s heads on the chopping block. We might chop some nominal servants of her majesty on our own turf.
It is known that the Queen and her staff have known for a long time that being the head of state of what is really a foreign country to her, could put her in a very awkward position in any kind of serious governmental crisis in Canada. They are actually looking for ways to untangle themselves from these constitutional roles in the British settler countries; so far unsuccessfully.
One final point should be make about the pro monarchy side’s argument; that the monarchy guarantees impartiality and integrity of the political process. Old Lizzie Windsor covers her hands well, with help from the establishment media, but plenty of information leaks out. She does have opinions of her own, and quietly plays the political system toward her ends. Note that the Windsor family’s territory is in the U.K. and somewhat in the E.U.; they have no push in Canada.
The British Royal family has great economic interests in ongoing imperialism. So do most of the other remaining royal families of Europe. They are also very much aligned with the pet cause of most old money and old aristocracy in Europe and elsewhere. That is, “one world” globalization and population reduction.
As for the anti monarchy side of this Saturday debate, it really did not get made. But removing the Queen, even if feasible, will do nothing to solve the “historic wrongs of colonialism” however they are conceived. The argument was made by someone who is typical of leftist reformers in Canada; concerned with symbols over substance.
It occurs to me that you could change the whole structure of government in Canada and solve our “colonial” problems, while leaving the superficial symbols of monarchy untouched. As long as the monarchy has no real power at all, it is no threat and is in fact entertaining.