A recent poll revealed that a majority of Canadians want to get rid of the British monarchy, to no longer recognize Britain’s king or queen as Canada’s official head of state.
The feeling is understandable. Queen Elizabeth had many admirable qualities, including her devotion to fulfilling her responsibilities. Charles III is less widely admired for a variety of reasons.
But even beyond the question of the relative merits of the current monarch, it is difficult for Canadians with no British background or even Canadians whose British background is many generations removed from the homeland to see the value in having a foreign king or queen as the Canadian head of state. History has moved on.
However, before we ditch our current constitutional monarchy, we need to decide what to replace it with.
Some will argue that we should adopt a republican structure such as exists in the United States, with a president separate from Congress. However, the dysfunctional nature of the American system should give us pause. The incessant conflict between the president and Congress makes it difficult to adopt any coherent policy. Moreover, the increasing concentration of power in the prime minister’s office is already a serious enough problem in Canada without elevating the prime minister to the status of president. It is better for Canada’s actual head of state to remain in Parliament, where there will at least be some level of accountability.
Some people will argue that we don’t need to replace the monarchy with anything. But there is some value in our current system. Before abolishing it, we should consider what role the monarchy currently plays in Canada.
In practice, the British monarch does not have any real power in Canada. Any power that exists is held by the monarch’s “representative,” the governor-general. This role is necessary on those occasions when there is uncertainty over which party should be asked to try to form a government or whether an election should be called. That is, a referee or arbiter is occasionally necessary to mediate political impasses. Moreover, the governor-general provides a formal process for registering new laws. Laws come into effect when they are signed by the governor-general. Further, the governor-general is useful in taking some of the ceremonial burden off the prime minister. A governor-general is still necessary even if the monarchy is abolished. We might consider alternative titles for this person and different ways of appointing him or her, but the role is necessary.
There is also a symbolic issue. Court cases are brought, not in the name of the current monarch or current government, but in the name of “the crown.” New Canadian citizens swear an oath of allegiance to the current monarch, whose power is only symbolic, not to Canada’s actual ruler, the prime minister. In this sense, “the crown” is an abstract concept. It is a reminder that there is an authority higher than the current government. Call it justice. Call it God. It is a healthy reminder that governments do not and should not have absolute power. They are subject to judgement for how they have used (or abused) the power entrusted to them. The concept of “the crown” is a symbolic buffer against brutal dictatorship and tyranny.
James R. Coggins 