In Defence of the Status Quo
Long Live the King of Canada
King Charles III has a weird ring to it. No matter how much the King is cloaked in ritual and ceremony, the fact remains that the man beneath it all is well, kind of ridiculous. Even the most steadfast defenders of the House of Hannover… err Windsor will admit that the son is much less beloved than the mother. Predictably, the demise of Queen Elizabeth II and accession of her less popular son to the throne has led to renewed calls for Canada (and Australia and New Zealand) to ditch the monarchy in favour of creating a Canadian Republic.
Proponents of republicanism in Canada often point to both recent examples, such as the Barbados, and older examples, like India, as ways that countries can successfully ditch the monarchy. In short, the argument boils down to, if they can do it, why can’t we?
Of course, the fact that altering Canada’s constitution is essentially impossible makes any move towards republicanism moot. But even if we imagine that we could somehow get all relevant parties to agree to get rid of Canada’s monarchy, the question is should Canada follow in the footsteps of other countries and end its relationship with the House of Windsor? In response, I say no. Canada should keep the monarchy.
The core of my argument is not a defence of tradition or keeping Canada’s British heritage. I think for good or ill, that ship has sailed and no amount of renaming the Air Force or hanging the portrait of the King or Queen in Canadian Embassies is going to change that fact. Rather, my defence of monarchy is a (small c) conservative one about the value of institutions and maintaining a healthy skepticism towards broad reform initiatives. In its most simplistic form, my position is, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The major point in favour of the status quo stems directly from the principle above. There are many issues currently facing Canadian democracy. I have written about some of these challenges, from better civic education to overheated and destructive political rhetoric, facing Canada in the third decade of the 21st Century. Canada still being a monarchy does not rank in the top of most problems. In fact, it is hard to see exactly what practical problems a Canadian monarchy creates or what problems eliminating the Crown solves.
The strongest argument in favour of republicanism is that Canadian institutions, such as our head of state, should reflect the values and make-up of modern Canada. While there certainly is some merit to this idea, the fact is that the current manifestation of monarchy in Canada is actually flexible enough to reflect these values. The Prime Minister functionally appoints the position of Governor General and as the appointment of Mary Simmons, Michaëlle Jean and Adrienne Clarkson demonstrate, it is possible to have the representative of the crown be an inclusive position. If said position were replaced with an elected presidency, I suggest it would be highly unlikely that as diverse a group of people would have populated the office over the past two decades.
This question of what exactly Canada would replace the monarchy with is an important one. I would suggest that advocates of reform not only have to demonstrate the deficiency of the status quo, but also what would take its place. The powers of the Crown are deeply embedded in many different parts of Canada’s political and legal system. For example, the power of the executive branch (I.E. cabinet) comes from the crown as ministers are acting as advisors to the monarch. Hence, the power to take executive action through Orders in Council (OiC) and appoint people to a multitude of positions is based on the idea that the ministers are advising the crown. The fact that the Crown does not exercise agency in employing these powers does not change the theoretical basis of ministerial power.
Consequently, Canada becoming a republic means replacing these institutional norms and practices. What source of authority and power will replace the crown in courts of law or in Parliament? For that matter, Parliament itself consists of the House of Commons, The Senate and the Crown. Removing one of the three pillars of Parliament will require redesigning the institution itself. The monarchy is so deeply embedded in the Canadian Constitution that it cannot be surgically removed; rather the whole body politic has to be recreated.
The point is not that these obstacles can never be overcome. Plenty of other countries have become republics and many more have modified their constitutions. However, given the integral nature of Crown authority to Canada’s political and legal system, it has to be replaced with something and all provinces plus the federal government will need to agree on what that is. Even if every government could agree to eliminate the monarchy, I am willing to stake a substantial amount on the fact that the ten provinces will never agree on what should replace said recently removed monarchy. Consequently, those advocating republicanism need to present a coherent model of a Canadian republic that will at least be plausibly acceptable to every province.
Certainly if anyone were designing a constitution from scratch they would not copy the Canadian model. Much like the British constitution, upon which Canada’s is explicitly based, it reflects a series of compromises that developed over the course of centuries, in the case of Britain. The result is a system of government with anachronism and seemingly irrational elements. However, the test for a constitution should not be whether it conforms to a set of abstract ideals, but whether it produces a stable and functional system of government. In that regard, Canada’s constitution passes this test. In fact, the greatest threats to Canada’s constitutional order came with the two Quebec referendums, precipitated in part by the constitutional reform attempts of Trudeau Sr. and Brian Mulroney.
The lesson that Canada should learn from the debacles of Meech Lake and Charlottetown is that large scale constitutional change is destabilizing. Rather than wholesale reform, the best constitutions have usually evolved over time rather than being designed (or redesigned) from scratch. The fact that the Americans immediately added ten amendments to theirs is a trite example of how difficult the process of constitution making is. The fact that France is on its fifth republic further makes my point. Even more recently, the experience of Chile should serve as a warning for Canadians; rewriting your constitution is a fraught business.
While there certainly are problems facing the Canadian political system, none of these are connected to the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy and not a republic. In order to solve these problems Canada can work within the existing constitutional structure. Much like Senate reform, the theoretical allure of redesigning Canada’s institutions should be resisted. Unless there is a clear and pressing need for constitutional reform, that is one box that should stay closed.