You're right, the u.s. is one of the few democracies that doesn't separate the 2.
And the United States' system of government is a joke.
The only
constitutional protection against an abusive head of government is the very fact, alone, that someone
else is the head of state, and that someone else's signature is needed to take action at the executive level of government. As
pro forma and ceremonial as that head of state's signature might be on nearly all occasions, that separation of political power from constitutional power is a critical safeguard of democracy, and it would be spectacularly unwise for us to tinker with it.
I was thinking it similar to America. Have the prime minister be the head of state and government at the same time, but I guess we would have to change systems and start having presidents
So, would you then have the Prime Minister no longer sit in the House of Commons? Would they no longer be responsible to the elected House? If the Prime Minister were defeated on a question of confidence, or censured, would it be up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not he could continue in office? Would the Prime Minister be able to wave a magic wand, and prorogue or dissolve the legislature, with no check in place if it were being abused for partisan purposes?
Who would remove the Prime Minister from office if they were to start to abuse the powers of office whilst they held a majority in the elected House? Would national honours be issued in the name of the Prime Minister, as a political officer, instead? Would we see Canadians rejecting honours or awards because they didn't want to be associated with the elected Government of the day?
Would we abolish the Chancellery? Would we stop issuing and tracking armourial bearings, losing track of centuries of Canadian history and family lines? Would the Prime Minister then become the chancellor of the Order of Canada? Would appointments to our highest national honours system become political patronage appointments, of the sort that are decried all the time?
Would we ask the Prime Minister to stop being so involved in the governing of the country? Or would we stop receiving ambassadors, high commissioners, and other heads of mission, because the Prime Minister was too busy with question period? Would we cut down on visits of our head of state abroad, building relationships with international partners, because the Prime Minister needed to be in his seat in the House for an important vote that week?
How would you merge two full-time jobs like that, without completely disrupting the proper governance of the country? The Governor General is Canada's oldest continuous governmental office, and it has stuck around for as long as it has because it works well. It has adapted as Canada has changed, and it is going to continue to do so to serve Canadians and our constitution as it must.
