In the wake of last December’s parliamentary crisis, two polls by the Dominion Institute—an organization devoted to promoting the memory, democracy, and identity of Canada—revealed a startling fact: many Canadians have absolutely no idea how their country works. A solid half—51 per cent—of those polled believe that the Canadian people directly elect the Prime Minister, and 75 per cent couldn’t name Canada’s head of state. As pundit Rick Mercer pointed out with conviction, “Who can blame them? The answer is ridiculous.”
As we stand at the dawn of a new millennium, the Confederation of Canada—independent since 1867, hero of Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach, founding member of the United Nations, and birthplace of international peacekeeping—is ruled by a family of snooty rich people whose escapades perennially appear in gossip tabloids next to ponderings about Jessica Alba’s moles, and speculation about Zac Efron’s bowel movements. This week we, the loyal subjects of the British Crown are treated to a royal visit from His Supreme Majesty the Prince of Wales and Her Highness the Duchess of Cornwall who, with the passing of our great Queen, will one day become our constitutionally recognized sovereigns.
But perhaps as we tremble at this most illustrious opportunity to bask in the rays of the divine royal light, we can take a moment to reflect on what the monarchy means to us, and what it really represents for the future of Canada.
Hyperbole aside, it’s outdated for a modern, liberal democracy such as ours to continue to embrace monarchical traditions dating from a time when people thought the earth was a pancake floating in the centre of the universe.
Our history is a complex one. We did not revolt against our British overseers as did our southern neighbours, nor did we guide them to the guillotine as was the norm in Paris circa 1789. Still, Canada’s problem is shared by France and America, which, despite their radical republicanism, still elevate their elected leaders to a status near divinity. The presidents of these enlightened countries must always carry with them wives and children, the objects and (subsequent) products of their manliness. Our current Prime Minister certainly imagines himself as such (if you don’t believe me, take a look at his party’s website). But, for now at least, he is not our supreme leader. We are, to all intents and purposes, a parliamentary democracy.
What does our ongoing liaison with the British monarchy tell us about our country? Canada likes to imagine itself as a model of democracy, a bastion of pluralism, a champion of peacekeeping, and above all, a unique and successful national experiment. But as both last December’s parliamentary disaster and this week’s royal visit show, we still embrace and rely upon a now imaginary hangover of our colonial heritage, which is becoming archaic even in Britain, where a floundering Labour government is finally taking small steps towards an elected House of Lords. Within our own borders, we cringe in fear when the Prime Minister tells us that the evil Bloc separatists are in alliance with the socialists, and are poised to storm the Bastille in a treasonous coup d’etat. Beneath our façade of self-awareness, our existential assurance is shallow. Our revelry at the sight of Charles and Camilla is perhaps the supreme symptom of this illness.
Canada may be a prosperous model of pluralism and diversity. We are about as close to a “Northern European Welfare State” as they come on this side of the Atlantic and most of us (Stephen Harper exempted) are proud of it. We have something which our American friends do not: a health care system which is open to all regardless of their ability to pay; a system which, despite what the GOP fanatics would have us believe, is cheaper and more efficient than the market-driven model. We have an unobtrusive national character that encourages residents to retain their cultural heritage whilst simultaneously feeling Canadian. With all these things in mind it is time for us to recognize the unequivocal truth that we are nobody’s subjects—on paper or in practice. We are, as the beer commercial cliché goes, Canadians.
Comments
I'm mostly ambivalent to the monarchy. I have ideological issues with the very idea of a monarchy and I wish we didn't we have one. But we do have it and riding ourselves of HRM will spark a complex constitution debate, as well as inflaming the usual regional and partisan tensions. What real benefits will this deliver to Canadians?
As a side note, opening up a national debate on abolishing the monarchy would likely be the end of the Conservative Party. It would split right down the middle and we'd be back in 1993 again.
And Luke, 6 days before Remembrance Day I'd like to remind you that the foundation of our proud military heritage was built not on peacekeeping, but peacemaking. We killed a whole hell of a lot of Nazis and I'm not afraid to say that I'm goddamn proud of it. We've never started a war but we've ended our share. Let me share with you the battle honours of the Royal Canadian Regiment:
Saskatchewan North West Canada, 1885 Paardeberg South Africa, 1899–1900
Ypres 1915, 1917 Gravenstafel St Julien Festubert Mount Sorrel Somme, 1916 Pozières Flers-Courcelette Ancre Heights Arras, 1917, 1918 Vimy, 1917 Arleux Scarpe 1917, 1918 Hill 70 Passchendaele Amiens Drocourt-Queant Hindenburg Line Canal du Nord Cambrai, 1918 Pursuit To Mons France and Flanders, 1915-1918
Landing In Sicily Agira Regalbuto Landing at Reggio Campabasso San Leonardo Ortona Gustav Line Hitler Line Lamone Crossing Valguarnera Adrano Sicily, 1943 Motta Montecorvino Torella The Gully Cassino II Liri Valley Gothic Line Misano Ridge Rimini Line Pisciatello Italy, 1943–1945 North West Europe, 1945 San Martino-San Lorenzo Fosso Vecchio Apeldoorn
Korea, 1951–1953
The price of freedom is paid in blood. Fortunately, most of our share has been paid by brave men of generations past. If the day comes when we forget their sacrifice because of partisan politics, it will be a sad day indeed.
Nov 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Rishi,
I think it's pretty self-riteous of you to post the names of all the battles Canada has fought in and then to spout aphorisms like "the price of freedom is paid in blood".
Does that have anything to do with my point about Canada? In fact, I even mentioned Juno Beach and Vimy Ridge.
Nov 6, 2009 at 06:17 PM
Pearson's vision does not define our role in the international community any more than Bush's warmongering should define America's future. Peacekeeping is an important cause, but it's role in Canadian history is as a political facade to strip our soldiers of the equipment, training and funding that they need. Brave men like Mark Isfeld would still be with us if we hadn't had 30 years of governments holding back on purchasing heavily armoured vehicles because they didn't fit the peacekeeping mission. The Royal Canadian Dragoons have lost 10 members needlessly to IEDs while their unit's tanks are parked in New Brunswick. In the 90s, Paul Martin was balancing the budget and privates with families were going to food banks.
"Peacekeeping" gave our once-proud military the distinction of having stood by and watched a genocide. To this day Canadian soldiers refuse to wear the UNAMIR campaign medal because it is a sign of shame.
Peacekeeping is as despised in the military as it is glorified in the media.
See what I mean now? There's more to Canada's military history than what you learned in grade 10.
Nov 6, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I think you've really digressed from the issue here. This is not a treatise on Canada's military history; what's more, I included examples of both peacekeeping and military efforts. What is it you want exactly?
Nov 7, 2009 at 02:49 AM
Although this discussion has digressed a bit, I'm always happy to see a debate over the Canadian identity.
Nov 7, 2009 at 04:12 PM
After reading Luke Savage's November 5th article in which he advocates the abolishment of the monarchy, I realized just how important it is for Canadians to be informed about how their government works. This article is a prime example of how Grade 10 Civics isn't doing its job. By printing this letter, the Varsity is allowing its readers to educate themselves about the first pillar of Canada's government.
Constitutional monarchy works so well that, except in the most exceptional circumstances (such as constitutional crises) it's not very noticeable. The principle of impartiality guaranteed by a hereditary monarch is essential, and its absence would surely uproot the convention of responsible government, causing parliamentary democracy to disintegrate in this country. Really, the actual Elizabeth Windsor is of little consequence, as Canada will always have a king or queen whose power is constitutionally limited, yet necessarily exercised from time to time.
The Crown is central to Canadian government and its development. Whether as a French or British colony (and beyond), Canada has always been a kingdom. The 1982 patriation of our constitution further entrenched the monarchy's role in Canada, and as recently as 1995, citizens again signified their preference when the majority of Quebecers chose to maintain their association with Canada and its Crown. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that this institution is unpopular, anachronistic, and undemocratic. The Queen exists to serve Canadians, and she does so with the consent of her people. In exchange, we hold her in high regard as our sovereign.
As well, one can hardly argue that the Queen is not of cultural value to Canadians. She is the personal embodiment of the country, and rightly forms a small (though essential) part of our national identity. How often does one try to impress their American friends by pointing out that Canada has a queen, and that she's on our money? Even so, I am an advocate for the reinvigoration of the monarchy, albeit it in a very Canadian way, downplaying some of its more “chiefly British” aspects. The monarchy's unifying qualities that transcend societal differences could definitely help mitigate the very unfortunate, yet real difficulties associated with official multiculturalism. Some of the most ardent supporters of the monarchy are, like myself, immigrants to this great country.
Aside from the problems presented by the pronunciation of the Latin word for queen Regina, Canada has benefited under the lifelong service of Queen Elizabeth II, and getting rid of Canada's constitutional monarchy would cause more harm than good. I welcome debate on this issue, as our society is founded on the basis of freedom of expression. However, Canada's monarchy will ultimately survive, as it has for hundreds of years.
Nov 7, 2009 at 09:33 PM
John,
Isn't it just a tad pathetic that the health of our parliamentary democracy rests on the 'impartiality' of a monarch who inherits the crown through the whims of blood ties?
I can concede to your view that there is no practical use for getting rid of the monarch at this point (or is there? Do we want another constitutional/coalition crisis decided by a governor general that nobody elected or is informed about?), and that it might just create unnecessary political conflicts.
But let's not kid ourselves. The monarch is an antiquated stain on our history as a liberal democracy, and its symbolism is ruthlessly insulting to our identity as a sovereign state. By retaining it, and what's worse - by proudly embracing it (and fatuously touting it as a some kind of worthy distinction from our American friends!) - we forever consign ourselves to submission and servitude. It tells other states that Canada will kneel to its greater and more powerful peers, and that it lacks the self-esteem to, at the bare minimum, assert its own genuine identity as independent from our historical overlords.
It is no surprise that Canada is perpetually unsure of what or who it is as a people, and why it will never be a great and respected nation.
Nov 8, 2009 at 06:26 PM
Nov 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I think you've fundamentally missed the point. Not only is monarchy anachronistic to a representative democracy, but to a country like Canada, which struggles so much with its own identity, it's profoundly hurtful: it precents us from reimagining ourselves and forming a coherent national identity.
Some people, and I think yourself, really like the idea of the monarchy. I don;t understand why. It is part of our history, yes, and I wouldn't suggest we deny that (nor do I anywhere in this article) but it is a primitive, heriditary form of government in which a family controls, or symbolically controls, the affairs of a country. Call me crazy but I consider that profoundly anti-humanist, anti-democratic, and contrary to the values of modern liberal democracy. Why should we get excited by our affiliation with the British Empire? For centuries it plundered, kidnapped, and murdered around the world. That doesn't mean we should forget about it, but it's high time we imagined ourselves differently and cutting ties with the monarchy is a terrific step towards achieving that.
Nov 9, 2009 at 05:51 PM
You have clearly missed the point of my comment, Savage. The British monarchy created the concept of liberal democracy with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The rights of life, liberty, and property were affirmed thanks to William III and the Protestant settlement. You clearly know nothing of history, and what little you do know comes from a biased, leftist perspective.
Why cannot the Monarchy be a part of our identity? It makes us distinct from every other country in North America. Besides, our history IS our identity. It tells us who we are and how we got here.
Not to mention, you fail to acknowledge the complexities of being a treasonous nation, it requires unanimous consent from all provinces and that is unrealistic.
Nov 9, 2009 at 09:51 PM
In response to others, let me point out that the monarchy nowadays has nothing to do with religion, and is neither a conservative or liberal idea.
I am the first person to concede that if democracy were contingent on simply having elections, a hereditary head of state is dreadfully undemocratic and unfair. However, it is the best method we as Canadians have to guarantee an impartial arbiter sits at the apex of power in our system. We take this impartiality for granted, but it might not be there if we were to elect the Governor General. Even so, the Queen is only in power because we allow her to be. She has very little residual power and only uses it when the Parliament can’t decide how best to go about things.
I also think it unfortunate that you paint Canada’s maturity as a nation as contingent on whether or not we have a monarchy. To do so it to discredit all of Canada’s accomplishments as a non-republic, as well as diminish the great steps forward we have made in establishing our own unique identity. The idea that Canadians will become more patriotic or more politically conscious simply by virtue of instituting a republican form of government is laughable.
In closing, I find it most interesting that the majority of anti-monarchists fail to put forward a clear alternative to the present arrangements. Even when they do, the solution often fails to take into account the unintended, but usually foreseeable consequences of changing an institution that had adapted quite well to meet modern-day problems. The want for a strong Canadian identity is absolutely admirable, but abolishing the monarchy is just full of empty symbolism, and wouldn’t bring around substantive change.
Nov 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM
If it ain't broken, don’t fix it.
I fail to see what benefit we would get out of dumping the Monarchy. I also don't see any real reason for doing so, other than it being "outdated".
Cutting our ties with Britain would open a huge can of worms with crackhead radicals in Québec. Plus it's probably the worst time to be considering this; maybe if we figure out our economy, Afghanistan, the environement, (etc.) then we can look at the issue.
If our identity as a country is really so delicate, and we think the Monarchy makes it ever so tough for us to determine our proper identity, then we obviously have deeper issues as a nation.
Nov 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Post a Comment