I know this always keeps coming up, but should Canada become a republic?

[Dexter Sinister]

I feel that serious changes should be made to the constitution to change Canada into a Federal Presidential Republic.

Jeez, this subject's like a vampire. Every time I start thinking it's dead, somebody pulls the stake out of its heart.

A republic is simply a form of government in which the head of state is elected in some fashion rather than being related to a hereditary monarchy. All Canada need do to become a republic is make the Governor-General an elected position. We wouldn't even have to change the job title. All references to the Crown and the monarch in statutes, regulations, and titles, would have to be altered--no more Court of Queen's Bench, for instance--but those are fairly trivial and don't require any substantive change. Becoming a republic would not in itself necessarily have any positive effect on any of the problems you mention, and might make some of them worse. The President or Governor or Archon or Doge or whatever we choose to name the job, as an elected official can be expected to be partisan. Any incumbent will feel a certain political legitimacy that is not currently associated with the position, and thus entitled to speak out on matters of public policy.

From what you've posted so far, you don't appear to know enough about this to think clearly about it. Regional interests would remain as they are, the structure and functions of parliaments and legislatures could remain as they are, the powers of the two orders of government could remain as they are, the concentration of power in the PMO could remain as it is, the electoral system could remain as it is... Becoming a republic wouldn't in itself require any change in those areas. It's not a solution to anything important and seems likely to just create more issues.

 

[s_lone]

Jeez, this subject's like a vampire. Every time I start thinking it's dead, somebody pulls the stake out of its heart.

To really kill a vampire, you need to expose it to light so it can burn and disappear forever. That's what we should do with monarchy. Expose it for the rigid and dogmatic system that it is and get rid of it altogether.


Canada is in complete denial. We claim to be progressive but our national institution has at its core one of the most rigid and dogmatic system of all (hereditary monarchy). The point isn't that the Queen is a bad Head of State. The point is that if she was a bad one, the system would not in any way permit any alternative. It's completely absurd in a supposedly democratic country. There's no difference between a theocracy and a hereditary monarchy in the sense that that the latter constitutes a blind and absolute faith held in the idea that a family lineage will consistently assure a decent and rightful heir to the throne.

I personally find the idea despicable and for that reason, my love for Canada is lessened. It's a sad thing to say, but I can only be true to what I believe is right and I strongly believe hereditary monarchy is screwed up and completely backwards way to decide who's gonna be a Head of State. Canada deserves better than that type of system. Way better.

A republic is simply a form of government in which the head of state is elected in some fashion rather than being related to a hereditary monarchy. All Canada need do to become a republic is make the Governor-General an elected position. We wouldn't even have to change the job title. All references to the Crown and the monarch in statutes, regulations, and titles, would have to be altered--no more Court of Queen's Bench, for instance--but those are fairly trivial and don't require any substantive change. Becoming a republic would not in itself necessarily have any positive effect on any of the problems you mention, and might make some of them worse. The President or Governor or Archon or Doge or whatever we choose to name the job, as an elected official can be expected to be partisan. Any incumbent will feel a certain political legitimacy that is not currently associated with the position, and thus entitled to speak out on matters of public policy.

And a Head of State shouldn't be entitled to speak out on matters of public policy? What's the point of having a Head of State if he or she is going to be a silent figure with no idea as to how the country should evolve?

The idea that we shouldn't vote for a Head of State because that would make it a partisan position doesn't hold in my opinion. With that kind of reasoning, we wouldn't vote for anyone at all! The people vote for people to represent their own ideas and of course, the people is not one big chunk of citizens who all agree unilaterally. There are divisions and thus partisanry.

From what you've posted so far, you don't appear to know enough about this to think clearly about it. Regional interests would remain as they are, the structure and functions of parliaments and legislatures could remain as they are, the powers of the two orders of government could remain as they are, the concentration of power in the PMO could remain as it is, the electoral system could remain as it is... Becoming a republic wouldn't in itself require any change in those areas. It's not a solution to anything important and seems likely to just create more issues.

You're right, becoming a republic wouldn't be a solution to anything in itself. Things could either get better or worse depending on what us the people decide to do with the power we have and what the leaders we elect do with the power we give them. But the fact remains that the core of our system is based on a dogmatic and quasi-religious principle which has no place in a modern country like Canada.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

And a Head of State shouldn't be entitled to speak out on matters of public policy?

Oh c'mon s_lone, I said nothing of the sort and you know it, though I would suggest that a head of state like ours, with no official role to play in public policy, speaking out on matters of public policy is unlikely to be anything but divisive. My point was that if we change the nature and role of our head of state, the consequences will be largely incalculable and not necessarily for the better, and since nothing is obviously broken, the issue seems pointless to me. I have the same low regard in principle for a hereditary monarch as you do, but I don't see that an elected one is necessarily any better. Consider the outgoing American president, for instance.

One of the strengths of the parliamentary systems that evolved from the British model is that the head of state and the head of government are different people, and the former's role is largely ceremonial. The French figured out that was a good idea too, possibly motivated by inspecting the results of the American model, so they have both an elected head of state, a president, and an elected head of government, a prime minister. They gave the president some important non-ceremonial functions as well, which is pretty much essential if you're going to elect one, otherwise there's no basis on which to choose who to vote for. But that might not have been a good idea. The history of the French republic is rife with disruptive and divisive partisan conflicts between presidents and prime ministers. Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."

 

[Adriatik]

Oh c'mon s_lone, I said nothing of the sort and you know it, though I would suggest that a head of state like ours, with no official role to play in public policy, speaking out on matters of public policy is unlikely to be anything but divisive. My point was that if we change the nature and role of our head of state, the consequences will be largely incalculable and not necessarily for the better, and since nothing is obviously broken, the issue seems pointless to me. I have the same low regard in principle for a hereditary monarch as you do, but I don't see that an elected one is necessarily any better. Consider the outgoing American president, for instance.

One of the strengths of the parliamentary systems that evolved from the British model is that the head of state and the head of government are different people, and the former's role is largely ceremonial. The French figured out that was a good idea too, possibly motivated by inspecting the results of the American model, so they have both an elected head of state, a president, and an elected head of government, a prime minister. They gave the president some important non-ceremonial functions as well, which is pretty much essential if you're going to elect one, otherwise there's no basis on which to choose who to vote for. But that might not have been a good idea. The history of the French republic is rife with disruptive and divisive partisan conflicts between presidents and prime ministers. Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."

You say that if nothing is obviously broken in this country, changing the system is useless...

Obviously, you are having troubble seeing the obvious.. Do you find it normal that provinces have been arguing for over 40 years regarding autonomy issues? Do you find it normal that since the beginning of the millenium, we have already had 4 elections? 4 elections in 8 years. Anyone who finds this normal has gone mad.

Nothing is getting done at parliament because of these frequent elections of minority governments. Nothing is getting done due to the fear of change that our politicians are haunted with.

And regarding your comments regarding head of state and head of government:

I think that the head of state should be the same person as the head of government. I see no reason to have two different people in these postions.. For starters. it's a waste of taxpayer money, and it would put a fork in the road for a government in power. The role of the head of government is to govern, not to struggle against the will of a head of state. If the head of government constantly has to argue with the head of state to get legislation passed, no progress can be made in a nation. So if Canada would ever become a republic, the head of state and head of government would have to be the same person person.

Call me a partisan but I don't see the point of giving a mandate to a government if it doesn't call the shots in the end...

 

[Tonington]

Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."

And reminds one of the law of unintended consequences. It's striking that folks who strive for this sort of more democratization don't see the problems inherent with more politicization. Students of history should know better what the latter leads to, and simple current comparisons make the former pretty obvious.

 

[EagleSmack]

Become a Republic and then you can have a cool Battle Hymn

The Union Forever!
Huzzah Boys Huzzah
Down with the traitors
And up with the Stars
And we'll Rally Round the Flag Boys...
We'll Rally Round the Flag...
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom!

 

[lone wolf]

Become a Republic and then you can have a cool Battle Hymn

The Union Forever!
Huzzah Boys Huzzah
Down with the traitors
And up with the Stars
And we'll Rally Round the Flag Boys...
We'll Rally Round the Flag...
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom!

Who's that? UAW or Teamsters?

 

[EagleSmack]

Who's that? UAW or Teamsters?

US Civil War... Battle Hymn of the Republic.

 

[Adriatik]

US Civil War... Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Why are you guys even talking about battle hymns in the first place?

If Canada becomes a republic, there will definitely never be a civil war...

If Canada would have ever had a chance of civil war, it would have been in 1980 or 1995...

 

[lone wolf]

US Civil War... Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Is my face red? Last three lines are familiar....

*wolf sits to another feast on crow*

 

[EagleSmack]

Why are you guys even talking about battle hymns in the first place?

Ummm...we're kidding around.

If Canada becomes a republic, there will definitely never be a civil war...

That is what we thought too!

If Canada would have ever had a chance of civil war, it would have been in 1980 or 1995...

Wow...so underlying tensions are still there.

 

[lone wolf]

Why are you guys even talking about battle hymns in the first place?

If Canada becomes a republic, there will definitely never be a civil war...

If Canada would have ever had a chance of civil war, it would have been in 1980 or 1995...

Do you want to bet? It would be with the same nation too

 

[EagleSmack]

Is my face red? Last three lines are familiar....

*wolf sits to another feast on crow*

It is almost lunch time is it Wolf?


We are springing to the call of our brothers gone before,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
And we'll fill our vacant ranks with a million free men more,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Obviously, you are having troubble seeing the obvious..

No, I can see the obvious alright, and one of the obvious things is that Canada becoming a republic won't by itself fix anything.

 

[s_lone]

Oh c'mon s_lone, I said nothing of the sort and you know it, though I would suggest that a head of state like ours, with no official role to play in public policy, speaking out on matters of public policy is unlikely to be anything but divisive. My point was that if we change the nature and role of our head of state, the consequences will be largely incalculable and not necessarily for the better, and since nothing is obviously broken, the issue seems pointless to me. I have the same low regard in principle for a hereditary monarch as you do, but I don't see that an elected one is necessarily any better. Consider the outgoing American president, for instance.

One of the strengths of the parliamentary systems that evolved from the British model is that the head of state and the head of government are different people, and the former's role is largely ceremonial. The French figured out that was a good idea too, possibly motivated by inspecting the results of the American model, so they have both an elected head of state, a president, and an elected head of government, a prime minister. They gave the president some important non-ceremonial functions as well, which is pretty much essential if you're going to elect one, otherwise there's no basis on which to choose who to vote for. But that might not have been a good idea. The history of the French republic is rife with disruptive and divisive partisan conflicts between presidents and prime ministers. Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."

OK... so you don't see that an elected Head of State is any better. Your point seems to be that our system works nicely enough, despite the doubtful humanistic value of hereditary monarchy. The valuable aspect to our current system is how the Head of State is apolitcal and non-partisan. Fair enough...

But I can imagine many ways in which we could conserve the advantage of non partisany while at least having the Head of State being named or elected by Canadians. Of course, ''non-partisanry'' remains relative in the sense that absolute neutrality in political matters doesn't really exist. While it may be true that the Queen mostly keeps her mouth shut when it comes to Canadian affairs, it's not true that she is non-partisan. She is in herself a partisan of the monarchical system which she represents, which isn't a small affair at all... She is a partisan of a system where the Head of State has a power position inherited by her social standing, not by her own merit (which isn't to say Queen Eliabeth has no merit). It's pretty much the equivalent of a caste system. Let me repeat how I find this concept nauseating. I don't understand why Canadians tolerate it. It's a simple question of principles. Our institutions represent what we believe in as a nation. It seems to me that hereditary monarchy is not at all representative of Canadian values of equality.

We could have a system where the Head of State is suggested by the Prime Minister but must be approved by at least 2/3rds (or more) of the House of Commons (to assure the opposition some say in the process). The Head of State in question would be very similar to the present Governor General, someone known for the quality of his or her public service to the country. I'm sure there are enough of these distinguished Canadians that could garner a relative unanimity in the House of Commons.

You might say that you wouldn't want the Prime Minister to be the one suggesting people for the Head of State, but isn't it how it's already done with the Governor General?

 

[TenPenny]

You might say that you wouldn't want the Prime Minister to be the one suggesting people for the Head of State, but isn't it how it's already done with the Governor General?

GG isn't the head of state, so that comparison doesn't matter.

Furthermore, considering how much people on this board have ranted against the PM, and the GG, and the leaders of the parties, how could you suggest with a straight face that having the House 2/3 vote for the Head of State would actually improve anything?

 

[s_lone]

GG isn't the head of state, so that comparison doesn't matter.

The comparison does matter in the sense that in modern practice, it is the Governor General who has a real role to play in Canada. Dexter's point was that we probably want to avoid partisanry but there is already a partisan aspect to things with the fact the the GG (who in the end has more influence than the Queen) is named by the Prime Minister. If one wants to conserve the state of things, it's possible to do so while scrapping the non-necessary and especially undemocratic role of a Monarch.

Furthermore, considering how much people on this board have ranted against the PM, and the GG, and the leaders of the parties, how could you suggest with a straight face that having the House 2/3 vote for the Head of State would actually improve anything?

WE the people vote for the people in the House of Commons. It is our duty to vote for people we trust. If Canadians are dissatisfied with how the system is working right now, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I can tell you with a very staright straight face that I believe a Head of State elected by the House of Commons with a 2/3rds majority would be a much better system than one where it is decided by the sex life of British Royals.

 

[Adriatik]

GG isn't the head of state, so that comparison doesn't matter.

Furthermore, considering how much people on this board have ranted against the PM, and the GG, and the leaders of the parties, how could you suggest with a straight face that having the House 2/3 vote for the Head of State would actually improve anything?

Actually, the Governor-General is a representative of the head of state who is the Queen of England... The Governor-General simply signs legislation in the name of the Queen of England. This is actually a cerremonial practise and neither the Queen or the GG can veto legislation made in the Canadian parliament... Basically, all the Queen and GG do is shut-up, smile, and sign all legislation coming out of parliament..

However, I would support the head of state vetoing legislation if he/she were elected. That's why I would support a republican system. There is a grave need for someone to have control over which legislation is passed by parliament and it's not the current ceremonial Queen and GG that will do this.

 

[Adriatik]

I can tell you with a very staright straight face that I believe a Head of State elected by the House of Commons with a 2/3rds majority would be a much better system than a system where it is decided by the sex life of British Royals.[/quote]


A president elected by the people themselves would be way better than one elected by the House of Commons...

 

[s_lone]

A president elected by the people themselves would be way better than one elected by the House of Commons...

It's pretty much anything-but-monarchy to me...

I presented the scenario of a Head of State elected by the House of Commons because I was trying to figure out a way to scrap monarchy while bringing minimal changes to how Canada currently functions. This was in response to those who think Canada is just fine the way it is.

I personally agree that there are many things Canada should try to improve and I'm more than open to a lot of the ideas you propose... My main point of focus in my posts however has to do with the simple fact that whatever system we have, hereditary monarchy is not the way to go.