Monarchism in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Politics series on Monarchism

Definition Definitions of monarchism Varieties Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Elected monarchy Regency In history Magna Carta Foundation of the Ottoman Empire Glorious Revolution French Revolution First Spanish Civil War First French Empire Revolutions of 1848 Second French Empire Fall of Qing Dynasty Russian Revolution of 1917 Treaty of Versailles Second Spanish Civil War Spain under Franco Birth of the Italian Republic Iranian Revolution Modern Cambodia Australian republic referendum, 1999 Nepalese Civil War Related subjects Autocracy Divine Right of Kings Mandate of Heaven Monarchy Thomas Hobbes Montesquieu

Monarchism Portal Politics Portal  v • d • e

Canadian monarchism is the advocacy of the retention of Canada's monarchy, generally in opposition to Canadian republicanism, and is driven by various factors, including Canada's history, identity, and form of government. Canadian monarchists should not be confused with royalists, though the two groups may overlap.

[edit] Monarchist arguments

In philosophy and political science, two broad justifications are given for monarchy: the doctrine that monarchs are part of a social contract, founded on the autonomy of the individual (illustrated in the reciprocal Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance), and the doctrine that the monarch is an embodiment of the will and character of a people.

The monarchy's use as a living symbol of Canada's history is thus seen as a fundamental asset, as well as the monarch's position above the political fray; this removal of partisanship from the office allows it to be representative, not only symbolically but also functionally, of every member of the nation, regardless of their personal views, ethnic background, or financial standing; the sovereign "represents the people as citizens, as opposed to a head of government, who represents the people as voters."^[1] NDP MP Bill Blaikie said: "[The Queen] symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state... is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day."^[2]

Thus, while monarchists will today celebrate the monarchy as a tie to numerous other diverse nations around the world with a shared history; as an institution significant specifically within Canada's history; as a more personal, less bureaucratic symbol of the state; as well as what they assert are the distinct Canadian aspects of the Crown in Right of Canada, which is sometimes referred to by Canadian monarchists as the "Maple Crown";^[3][4] contemporary arguments will also often centre on the consistently stable functioning of the organ, and perceived political advantages of a constitutional monarchy system of governance as an integral part of the functioning of Canada's modern government.

In February, 2002, columnist Michael Valpy summed up a number of monarchist arguments when he outlined his seven statements on the Canadian monarchy:

"1) In a 21st century, postmodern, multicultural, immigrant nation with floating global citizens and melted borders, having super-celebrity Elizabeth II as the head of state is funky. Charles as head of state will be funkier, more cool.

2) Constitutional monarchy is a gift to Canada's surly federalism.

3) Canada has been a monarchy of some kind or another for 500 years. The tradition may be eccentric, it may be irrational, but it belongs to us, rooted deep in time in a world of nanosecond disposable obsolescence.

4) The Canadian monarchy irritates the political, academic and journalistic elites. Good. If ever a country was overwhelmed by tedious, anal-retentive elites in need of irritation, it's this one.

5) The institution works. It works with a minimum of fuss, which is why we seldom think about it. It has been thoroughly Canadianized over the years, which is why - have you thought of this? - Conrad Black no longer lives here.

6) In a world ruled by widget-sellers and moneychangers, Canada has a head of state from the realms of fairy tales and imagination. Lucky us. (See Statement 5.)

7) Getting rid of the monarchy would be a constitutional nightmare."^[5]

Overall, because of the aspects of Canada's history and government that are monarchical in nature, or closely related to the monarchy – such as a human embodiment of the state, an apolitical head of state, a three part paliament with a monarch at its head, as well as the long history of monarchy in Canada, including a pivotal role in maintaining the country's independence, and the prevelance of Canadian royal symbols – monarchists generally see the Crown as providing Canada with a distinct identity, especially from the United States, and as the philosophical basis of the social differences that have evolved since the end of the 18th century between what were then essentially the same people.^[6]

[edit] History and symbolism

Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, with the Canadian flag, and wearing the regalia of the Canadian monarch (the Sovereign's insignias of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit) symbolising her role as Queen of Canada as separate from her position as Queen of the United Kingdom.

Canadian monarchists, in particular, historically celebrated the monarchy as a link to the United Kingdom and British Empire, and thus a tie to Canada's British heritage. However, with the decline of empire through the 1950s, and in reaction to Quebec separatism in the 1960s, the enhancement of multiculturalism as an official policy, and the growth of a distinct Canadian nationalism through the 1970s and 80s, less and less attention was focused on Canada's British heritage, of which the monarchy was deemed to be at least partly representative. Into the 1990s, the monarchy began to take on more distinctively Canadian aspects, including the enhancement of the role of the Governor General as a national and international representative of the Queen and Canada, the increased celebration of the French roots of the monarchy,^[7] as well as the federal and provincial governments recognising and promoting the Queen's role as monarch of Canada as separate to her position as monarch of the United Kingdom. By 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was saying to new Canadian citizens: "Our rights and freedoms flow from the thousand-year-old legal and parliamentary traditions we inherited from out founding nations, France and England. They are embodied in Canada's Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to whom you swore an oath of allegiance today."^[8]

Monarchists state that as the Crown is shared with the other Commonwealth realms in an equal fashion (by the Statute of Westminster), the monarchy is therefore partly Canadian; a perception in line with the Department of Canadian Heritage.^[9] Also, monarchists such as Stephen Phillips reject republican assertions that the monarchy as it operates within Canada is a British, rather than Canadian, institution. The Canadian Crown, it is argued, is the modern incarnation of an unbroken chain of monarchs starting with the first European settlement in Canada, making it one of an approximate half-dozen that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance from before the country itself was founded,^[10] which gives Canada an apolitical institution that embodies the country's long history. Monarchists state that because of this monarchical history, republicanism is not a part of the Canadian psyche, and any move towards such an end, without provocation or real reason, would run contrary to the national persona.

It will often also be argued that the sovereign acts as the symbolic head of the "Canadian national family"; as Father Jacques Monet expressed: "Her Majesty remains at the head of the State, the living symbol of the roots and continuity of the values we hold in common and those that are our permanent ideals... She is the one entrusted with the conscience of the nation..." Journalist Andrew Coyne said in 2002: "...our ability to love inclines most naturally to persons, and in the person of the Queen we can invest all those many fractured loves that make up patriotic love: love of country, love of nation, love of culture, love of land, all combined and channeled through one person, one family... And [the monarch], in turn, directs this concentrated beam of popular affection in the exercise of her public duties."^[11] This, it is asserted, puts a human face on the nation, as opposed to republics where the objective constitution or flag is revered in place of a human being, and allows people to give allegiance to a person, rather than inanimate objects, or vague notions such as "the land" or "the country."^[11] It is also seen by monarchists as making the sovereign an ideal representative of the Canadian state, as opposed to a president, who, due to the election process, would cause a relative amount of division between his or her supporters and detractors. Monarchists opine that in a country such as Canada, where regional, linguistic, and cultural divisions already exist, a divisive head of state would be detrimental rather than beneficial;^[2] it has been said that symbolizing the entire nation is "one reason monarchs flourish in countries split by ethnicity."^[12]

Past chairman of the Toronto branch of the Monarchist League of Canada stated on this topic that "it is one of the great protections of democracy and one of the weaknesses of the republican system that in our system the Queen is the state and the people are not the state." He argued that a society that recognises the monarch as the state permits the society's members to exist apart from the state, to criticise it, and not take responsibility for what the state might have done. This, he asserted, avoids the paradox wherein opposing the state is opposing the people, which would mean one opposes one's self.^[13]

Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the Fathers of Confederation, who upheld the monarchical principal in Canada.

John A. Macdonald, speaking in 1865 about the proposals for the upcoming Confederation of Canada, said:

"By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle - the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party — to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all."^[14]

Monarchists state there is nothing to be ashamed about in this history or present arrangement, and that republican argument often takes the form of cultural cringe and focuses on long settled issues such as Canada's independence and responsible government. Tony Hall argued that republicans demonstrate a sophistry described as a "'presto-you're-an-adult' immaturity that would malign Canada as some sort of pimply-faced adolescent thinking she could prove she is grown up by smoking a cigarette and telling Mom where to get off."^[15] Rex Murphy stated "there's no courage in questioning the monarchy. It's the most weary, stale, pseudo-debate in the history of high school speaking contests. The courage to debate the monarchy passed long, long ago when the monarch gave up the dungeon, the tower and the rack."^[16]

[edit] Democratic principles and governmental role

Monarchists in Canada uphold the argument that "the old view that democracy and monarchy are fundamentally incompatible has been proven wrong" by countries such as Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, and the like;^[12] and there is no reason why Canada is different. Monarchists argue that not only is a monarch trained from birth to be a competent head of state,^[12] but that constitutional monarchy is a democratic institution as the position of Canadian monarch is created, and filled, by and according to the Canadian constitution, which continues to be supported by the Canadian people through their elected representatives in government. The institution was used as the bedrock of the Canadian Constitution because it was viewed by the Fathers of Confederation as a guarantor of Canadians' "life, liberty, and prosperity," and a body that was inclusive and still subject to the rule of law; parliament, of which the monarch is one of the three pillars, spoke for all.^[17] Further, it is stated that as the monarch is meant to hold no favouritism towards any specific political party – and thus, no group of voters, donors, etc. – the Crown is a fundamentally unbiased institution, allowing for a "rigorously neutral civic identity" at the national level.^[18] Monarchists will state this apolitical nature has a democratic and governmental bonus on two fronts: The monarch, as well as his or her viceroys, are allowed to not only represent all Canadians, regardless of age, race, gender, income, or political leanings; but the monarch may also act as a non-partisan figure who can work as an effective intermediary between Canada's various levels of government and political parties – an indispensable feature in a federal system. It is argued that the monarchy makes the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction as potent as the federal authority, thus allowing for a flexible federalism.^[2] Ireland, whose presidency is one which Canadian republicans theorise could be copied in Canada, is not a federated country, and thus a hypothetical Canadian president's role would not be the same as that in Ireland. Further, every Irish president has run for election uncontested.

Further information: Monarchy in the Canadian provinces

The fact that the Crown holds all executive authority is seen as a bonus by monarchists, who state that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain. The monarch has no policy powers – that is the domain of the elected government, headed by the Prime Minister – but is a required, formal co-signatory to political instruments, who has a personal stake in protecting constitutional government from non-justifiable abuses. Thus, despite any public perception of wealth and privilege associated with monarchy, monarchists argue that the reserve powers of the Crown and the peculiar nature of the office render it a useful, if limited, asset against the "presidential" aspirations of prime ministers, and a superior safeguard for executive oversight than anything available in a republican context. Put simply, requiring prime ministers to bow the knee and show deference and humility on a regular basis is a useful way of keeping their egos under control.^[19] Put another way, the sovereign's supremacy over the Prime Minister in the constitutional order is a "rebuff to the pretensions of the elected: As it has been said, when the Prime Minister bows before the Queen, he bows before us."^[11] The case suggests the Queen has the usefulness of an observer within the executive who is unaffiliated with political parties, who does not owe her job security to the Prime Minister of the day, and who can afford to scrutinise political controversies that may sweep the incumbent Prime Minister from office;^[2] the monarch becomes an external observer who, when combined with the conventions of ministerial responsibility, enhances the democratic accountability of the executive branch to the elected legislature, and the accountability of the elected legislature to the electorate. The most famous advocates of this view were Canadian historian Eugene Forsey (a Canadian Senator, whose defence of the monarchy formed part of his doctoral thesis in history at Oxford) and Australian lawyer H.V. Evatt (later a High Court Judge and Australian attorney-general, whose treatment of Westminster law concerning the monarch and reserve powers was the basis of his doctoral thesis in law). Both Forsey and Evatt were social democrats, heavily involved in the labour movements of their respective countries. Their work built on that of Alpheus Todd, the 19th century librarian of the Canadian House of Commons. Todd's encyclopedic work effectively contradicted the popularly-known, class-obsessed treatise by Walter Bagehot, whose opinions on the monarchy as a "bauble" to distract the "lower" classes remain influential in Britain. In recent decades Bagehot has been effectively discredited, his historical, political and legal assumptions disproved. (For example, his belief that the Queen's position exists solely at the pleasure of the parliament, without reference to the electorate, does not withstand detailed scrutiny.)

George Grant, philosopher and constitutionalist.

The analogy monarchists use is that the Crown is like a fire extinguisher: rarely used, but highly visible and there in case of emergencies. As Earl Russell put it in The Spectator in 1997: "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing." Or, as Sir Michael Forsyth said in 1999: "The monarchy's most important constitutional function is simply to be there: by occupying the constitutional high ground, it denies access to more sinister forces; to a partisan or corrupt president, divisive of the nation; or even to a dictator. The Queen's powers are a vital safeguard of democracy and liberty." Constitutionalists such as Forsey and George Grant, saw monarchy as a "bulwark against cabinet despotism."^[15] Monarchists thus say that it is impossible to imagine that any elected head of state can remain as apolitical and unbiased as a constitutional monarch, such as Canada's, is.^[12] They argue that having both an elected president and prime minister could lead to the two coming to odds over who holds more authority; each could claim to be "elected by the people," as happened in the Congo in 1960 and East Timor in 2006.

In response to Citizens for a Canadian Republic's proposal to elect the Governor General,^[21] as a step towards some form of republican constitution, monarchists point to the divisiveness this move would bring to the presently apolitical office, citing the situation that emerged in 2004 between the rival candidates for the viceregal office in fellow Commonwealth realm Papua New Guinea, where the nominee for Governor-General is selected by parliamentary vote.

[edit] Costs

Monarchists also argue that a republican head of state would cost more, not less, than the current monarchy, due to additional costs involved in updating the Governor General's residences to full head of state presidential palace level, the costs of state visits, political advisers, increased ceremonial functions, etc.; functions that in many cases do not exist for a Governor General, given that he or she is not a full head of state, but which would be required for a Canadian president.²

[edit] Quebec sovereignty

In response to the republican claim that Canada becoming a republic would appease the drive for Quebec sovereignty, monarchists say that those in Quebec who wish for their province to secede from confederation view any federal authority as repressive, regardless of whether that authority is republican or monarchical; hence, the future of the monarchy is regarded as a non-issue by separatist parties like the Bloc and Parti Québécois. Monarchists also say that Canadian presidents would be more often selected by and/or from the majority English population of the country, and thus sovereigntists would argue that Québécois are not being represented by the head of state.

[edit] Canadian sovereignty

In the early 1960s, William Lewis Morton devoted attention to clarifying both the historic and continuing significance of the Canadian monarchy, arguing that the saw the structuring of the Canadian Dominion as a kingdom not as some "bait for dim-witted Tory voters" but instead as a way to thwart American expansionism into Canadian territories; the constitutional monarchy was meant to be a balance between the Russian Empire, seen as despotic, and the popular sovereignty of the United States, which had just led to the American Civil War. The British North America Act was based not on a promise between the state and the sovereign people, but, rather, on a form of allegiance where, as Morton put it, "there is no pressure for uniformity... Monarchy made it possible to achieve all these things, whereas republican democracy would, it seemed, have ensured the victory of local interests and race antagonisms in British America, a victory ending in absorption to the United States."^[15]

The University of Lethbridge's Professor of Native American Studies, Tony Hall, has argued that more than merely a symbolic difference, the Canadian Crown is a key component in maintaining Canadian sovereignty, especially from the United States and corporate domination, stating that the true basis for the steady assault on the Crown was to move Canada closer into the American sphere and "the presidential style of marketplace politics." He aligned himself with George Grant, Eugene Forsey, and others, in the view that the real threat to Canada's independence was not the British roots of its constitution, but instead the expansionist powers of Manifest Destiny in the United States, and said that many who argued for abolition of the Crown supported "a new rule of law vesting real sovereignty in global corporations through the authority of instruments like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization." As corporations become viewed as "natural persons" within the nation-state, and wield more significant power over government than actual individuals can, monarchy, in its position beyond the control of popular sovereignty, is seen as more immune to the negative effects of the corporatisation of society.^[15]

[edit] Constitutional implications

The difficulty of removing the monarchy is also pointed out by Canadian monarchists; namely the amending formula of the Constitution which states that any alteration to the Crown requires the consent not only of both Houses of Parliament, but also of the legislatures of all ten provinces. Further, Dr. Stephen Phillips, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Langara College, stated the Crown was more entrenched in Canada than generally realised, with three reasons to support this opinion: 1) "The monarchy has undergone profound change since Confederation... By surviving and being itself transformed by, Canada's transition from the status of a self-governing Dominion to that of a fully independent state, the Crown arguably pre-empted the rise of a republican movement in Canada of any significance. 2) "The institution of the monarchy in Canada... performs its political functions satisfactorily for the most part. This makes it difficult for republicans to build popular support for its abolition." And 3) "The monarchy today has a powerful, if under-stated, symbolic value to many English-speaking Canadians. In particular, the Crown is an important sense of their identity vis-a-vis the United States."^[22]

[edit] First Nations

Other constitutional implications involve the treaties between the Crown and Canadian First Nations, as many of the treaties are directly between the sovereign and the relevant indigenous peoples, and now form a part of the Canadian Constitution. First Nations commentators have pointed out that this relationship between the Crown and Canada's indigenous people is important to the country's sovereignty, citing the example of the treaty signed with the Inuit of Nunavut, who are the primary exercisers of Crown sovereignty over the eastern Arctic, through which the Northwest Passage, contested by the United States, amongst other countries, runs.^[15]

Tony Hall has argued that the "living heritage" of Crown-First Nations treaties must not be sacrificed to reductivist republican views of constitutional change that are similar to authoritarian moves that privatise public property or that remove entrenched rights.^[15]

[edit] History

Main article: Debate on the monarchy in Canada

[edit] Public opinion

See: Public opinion polls

[edit] See also

• Monarchy of Canada
• Debate on the monarchy in Canada
• Republicanism in Canada
• Constitutional monarchy
• Monarchy
• Monarchism

[edit] References

1. ^ Department of Canadian Heritage: The Canadian Crown - a brief background
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Monarchist League of Canada: A Crown for the 21st Century: Arguments in Support of Canada's Constitutional Monarchy
3. ^ Arguments for the Maple Crown
4. ^ Grey Papers; Grey to Edward VII; 4 March and 1 Sept. 1905
5. ^ Valpy, Michael; The Globe and Mail: Reasons to love the Queen: No. 1, she's funky; Saturday, February 2, 2002
6. ^ Toffoli, Gary; Bousfield, Arthur; Canadian Royal Heritage Trust: The Monarchy and Canadian Independence; Fealty Enterprises; 2004
7. ^ Senate/Sénat Canada: Canada, A Constitutional Monarchy/Le Canada, une monarchie constitutionnelle
8. ^ Harper, Stephen; as quoted in: Canadian Monarchist News: Harper Writes New Citizens; Autumn-Winter 2007; No. 27
9. ^ [www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/index_e.cfm Department of Canadian Heritage, The Canadian Monarchy]
10. ^ Monet, Jacques; Canadian Monarchist News: Crown and Country; Summer, 2007
11. ^ ^{a b c} Coyne, Andrew; National Post: A lightning rod for patriotic love; April 10, 2002
12. ^ ^{a b c d} Jennings, Diane; The Dallas Morning News: The World's Monarchies; November 1, 1998
13. ^ Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly - April 10, 1996 - Bill 22, Legislative Assembly Oath of Allegiance Act, 1995
14. ^ Macdonald, John A.; On Canadian Confederation; 1865
15. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Hall, Tony; Canadian Forum Magazine: The politics of monarchy: it's not what you might expect; April, 1998
16. ^ Murphy, Rex; CBC News: The National: Manley and the monarchy; October 7, 2002
17. ^ Fierlbeck, Katherine; Canada: more liberal than Tory? A new book puts the country's bedrock beliefs under a microscope.(The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament)(Book review); Literary Review of Canada; July 1, 2007
18. ^ Ajzenstat, Janet; The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament; McGill-Queen's University Press; ISBN 9780773531529, ISBN 9780773532243
19. ^ See Nigel Greenwood, For the Sovereignty of the People, Australian Academic Press, 1999, for a discussion of the Crown as a legal and political instrument of parliamentary democracy in the Westminster system, giving a detailed examination of Todd, Evatt and Forsey, and a contrast-and-compare of modern US and French problems with 20th Century executive lawlessness; e.g. the post-Watergate findings of the US congressional committees re the absence of an executive figure outside the corrupted chain of command. See also Evatt and Forsey on the Reserve Powers, Legal Books, Sydney Australia, 1990; Todd, A., Parliamentary Government in England, Longman Green, London 1869.
20. ^ Phillips, Dr. Stephen; Republicanism in Canada in the reign of Elizabeth II: the dog that didn't bark; Summer 2004
21. ^ Citizens for a Canadian Republic: Goals
22. ^ Dr. Phillips, Stephen; Canadian Monarchist News, Republicanism in Canada in the Reign of Elizabeth II: the Dog that Didn't Bark; Summer, 2004