Totally agree. Our head of state carries no historic weight, no prestige, no real check on the executive. The PM of the day is the executive on his own, who can move MPs around like pawns on a chessboard to suit his political will. The sooner we rid ourselves of this useless crown abstraction, the sooner our federal political system can be reformed.
"But the monarchy weakens Canada's political structures. Our heads of state hold power derivatively, and this imposes a double political discount. They are not treated as real heads of state - we like to elevate the importance of our monarchy even in the face of its political emptiness - and the office is imprinted with the ornamentalism that Canadians attach to the British monarchy."
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Crown+presence+hinders+political+system+Canada/6382862/story.html
"But the monarchy weakens Canada's political structures. Our heads of state hold power derivatively, and this imposes a double political discount. They are not treated as real heads of state - we like to elevate the importance of our monarchy even in the face of its political emptiness - and the office is imprinted with the ornamentalism that Canadians attach to the British monarchy."
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Crown+presence+hinders+political+system+Canada/6382862/story.html
Crown presence hinders political system in Canada
By John D. Whyte, The StarPhoenix March 30, 2012
Whyte is a policy fellow at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Regina.
Vaughn Schofield's recent appointment raises the question of what is the function of the provincial lieutenant-governor, or of the governor general, for that matter.
Our Constitution assigns to them certain legislative and executive functions and makes them part of our governmental system. The generic description of these offices is that they are "heads of state." Parliamentary democracies have both a head of government (in Canada, the premiers and the prime minister) and a head of state. Persons in the latter position give formal approval to legislation and governmental orders, and perform other important but limited political duties.
The responsibilities bestowed on heads of state are part of the constitutional structure that gives legitimacy to governmental power. The stability in any political community depends on the legitimacy of power held and exercised.
In our system, a part of that legitimacy comes from popular consent being given to governments through fair elections. But consent alone is not sufficient. Much of history demonstrates that popular approval of governments has not forestalled oppression and injustice.
Political power in liberal democracy is subject to two other conditions: Governments must comply with the law and the constitution, as applied by an independent judiciary, and each branch and agency of government is given responsibility for reviewing and checking the actions of other governmental branches.
There cannot be any final political victory over the elements of government that are designed to serve as a check on power. A head of state is one of those elements, playing two vital roles in controlling government.
The head of state monitors and regulates the succession of governmental power.
Frequently, constitutional rules for succession are the ones most chafed at; those who hold power soon grow reluctant to lose it. The only formal restraint against this tendency is the head of state, who holds the power to determine who, according to constitutional rules, will next be allowed to form government.
The second role isn't extensively exercised in Canada. It is to counsel the government about vital interests - public interests, constitutional interests, interests of peace and order - that are ignored and hurt by governmental actions. While the Queen regularly plays this role in her relations with Britain's government, here are few instances in Canada of such warnings from our heads of state.
However, this role was talked about in connection with former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's plan to amend the Constitution unilaterally, and again when Prime Minister Stephen Harper resorted to prorogation to avoid political defeat and parliamentary accountability.
Under the Constitution there is the further role of assenting to legislation and governmental orders. This function, however, provides little actual restraining power. The head of state can act more effectively through quiet warnings grounded in political experience than through direct confrontation.
As everyone knows, Queen Elizabeth is Canada's formal head of state, and the lieutenant-governors and the governors general hold a vice-regal office. Canada is, therefore, a monarchy, but one in which the actual monarch exercises no power. Since 1947, the monarch has delegated all his or her powers to surrogates in Canada.
But the monarchy weakens Canada's political structures. Our heads of state hold power derivatively, and this imposes a double political discount. They are not treated as real heads of state - we like to elevate the importance of our monarchy even in the face of its political emptiness - and the office is imprinted with the ornamentalism that Canadians attach to the British monarchy.
There are other bases for political skepticism over our monarchy - its foreignness, the primogeniture that determines who holds office, its symbolic adoption of British colonialism, and the privileging one national identity among many.
Liberal democratic states need a head of state whose role is understood and whose authority is clear. Holding governmental power cannot be a licence to oppress. One way to prevent this is to equip the head of state with genuine political authority to demand reconsideration and, even, revision of governmental decisions.
Canada's heads of state do not carry the weight for this.
By John D. Whyte, The StarPhoenix March 30, 2012
Whyte is a policy fellow at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Regina.
Vaughn Schofield's recent appointment raises the question of what is the function of the provincial lieutenant-governor, or of the governor general, for that matter.
Our Constitution assigns to them certain legislative and executive functions and makes them part of our governmental system. The generic description of these offices is that they are "heads of state." Parliamentary democracies have both a head of government (in Canada, the premiers and the prime minister) and a head of state. Persons in the latter position give formal approval to legislation and governmental orders, and perform other important but limited political duties.
The responsibilities bestowed on heads of state are part of the constitutional structure that gives legitimacy to governmental power. The stability in any political community depends on the legitimacy of power held and exercised.
In our system, a part of that legitimacy comes from popular consent being given to governments through fair elections. But consent alone is not sufficient. Much of history demonstrates that popular approval of governments has not forestalled oppression and injustice.
Political power in liberal democracy is subject to two other conditions: Governments must comply with the law and the constitution, as applied by an independent judiciary, and each branch and agency of government is given responsibility for reviewing and checking the actions of other governmental branches.
There cannot be any final political victory over the elements of government that are designed to serve as a check on power. A head of state is one of those elements, playing two vital roles in controlling government.
The head of state monitors and regulates the succession of governmental power.
Frequently, constitutional rules for succession are the ones most chafed at; those who hold power soon grow reluctant to lose it. The only formal restraint against this tendency is the head of state, who holds the power to determine who, according to constitutional rules, will next be allowed to form government.
The second role isn't extensively exercised in Canada. It is to counsel the government about vital interests - public interests, constitutional interests, interests of peace and order - that are ignored and hurt by governmental actions. While the Queen regularly plays this role in her relations with Britain's government, here are few instances in Canada of such warnings from our heads of state.
However, this role was talked about in connection with former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's plan to amend the Constitution unilaterally, and again when Prime Minister Stephen Harper resorted to prorogation to avoid political defeat and parliamentary accountability.
Under the Constitution there is the further role of assenting to legislation and governmental orders. This function, however, provides little actual restraining power. The head of state can act more effectively through quiet warnings grounded in political experience than through direct confrontation.
As everyone knows, Queen Elizabeth is Canada's formal head of state, and the lieutenant-governors and the governors general hold a vice-regal office. Canada is, therefore, a monarchy, but one in which the actual monarch exercises no power. Since 1947, the monarch has delegated all his or her powers to surrogates in Canada.
But the monarchy weakens Canada's political structures. Our heads of state hold power derivatively, and this imposes a double political discount. They are not treated as real heads of state - we like to elevate the importance of our monarchy even in the face of its political emptiness - and the office is imprinted with the ornamentalism that Canadians attach to the British monarchy.
There are other bases for political skepticism over our monarchy - its foreignness, the primogeniture that determines who holds office, its symbolic adoption of British colonialism, and the privileging one national identity among many.
Liberal democratic states need a head of state whose role is understood and whose authority is clear. Holding governmental power cannot be a licence to oppress. One way to prevent this is to equip the head of state with genuine political authority to demand reconsideration and, even, revision of governmental decisions.
Canada's heads of state do not carry the weight for this.
