Re: Advantages of Monarchy
First and foremost, there is the question of unity.
Under a system of monarchy, the entire population can be loyal and united under The Crown of Canada—there need not be a question of partisan association, or of the most recent budget, or of armed forces activities, or of the decisions of the government of the day. The entire nation can be united under The Crown—under a presidential republic, this is not the case. I’m sure this is obvious enough in discussions where, far too often, phrases such as “your president” are bandied about, to emphasize one’s distance from their own head of State. It’s a most unfortunate phenomenon that those under a system of constitutional monarchy are able to avoid. We can be loyal to The Queen and The Crown, whilst also opposing the prime minister and his Government, and it raises no questions of national pride or patriotism.
Secondly, there is the question of the very constitutional structure of Canada.
We are fortunate enough to have a system where the executive authority is not vested in an elected individual—in practical terms, of course executive decisions rest with the prime minister, but the fact that the authority of those decisions does not rest with him or her is of paramount importance. Since a prime minister is accountable to both the House of Commons and The Crown, we have a system of government where the prime minister—should he ignore the express wishes of the House of Commons—can be removed for abuse of his constitutional prerogatives. Such is not the case with presidential republics, and this feature comes for free. We have a guarantee of responsible government—a feature that by its very nature can only exist under constitutional monarchy.
We are blessed with a system where the Governor General or The Queen can exercise such a vast range of constitutional powers, under emergency or exigent circumstances, as the case requires. This gives us a very adaptive system of government that can also be responsive to the events of the day. A prime minister that abuses his constitutional powers (knock on wood) can be dismissed with the entire authority of The Crown, and a Government thrown out of power—a Government can be commissioned in a mere moment, and it would have the entire authority of The Crown, and the law. These powers do, of course, sound radical—and they are. This is why these powers are not used, but rather exist as a safeguard against threats to Canada’s democracy. Such emergency powers could not be used with any semblence of legitimacy by an elected representative.
And of course, there is the issue of honours, and of the command-in-chief of the Canadian Forces. It is inappropriate for the members of the Canadian armed forces to have to be united under the leader of a political party—it is far more appropriate, and practical, to be united and commissioned under The Queen and Her Majesty’s representatives. The same concept stands for honours and decorations—awards and such should be awarded by someone who is non-partisan, just as justice should be administered in the name of a non-partisan authority, again The Queen.
The background mechanics performed by constitutional monarchy, for our system, cannot be replicated by a president.
And once again, I’m not worried about the monarchy losing its status for Canadians—I cannot foresee the Senate, Commons and the ten provincial legislatures coming to an agreement to toss the Governor General and Her Majesty out. We are fortunate to be governed by a system of constitutional monarchy, and I very much hope that its key characteristics are maintained and strengthened in the years to come.
