Constitutional Monarchy

[JamesHackerMP]

I said in my very first post that I was seeking information exchange here.  As an American, I'd like to know Canadians' thoughts on the institution of constitutional monarchy, both in general, and how it relates to Canada.

The issue raises the £64,000 question: what's the purpose for retaining modern constitutional monarchy in commonwealth realms? Is it still useful; or is it a relic of a bygone age? What does it really do in the modern world, particularly in your country, that the Canadian People have not long since abolished it? A few former commonwealth realms have done precisely that.  Most recently in Australia, but it was rejected by the voters (by a fairly narrow margin, wasn't it?)

With the crown being a figurehead in the UK and its associated commonwealth realms, is it useful to still have it? Or is it just maintained nostalgically "for old time's sake"?

OK, that was questions, plural.  Hope some of you could help me understand this one.  I'm sure there's a purpose to it, but I'd rather hear the views of people who actually live in a country with a constitutional monarch as the legal head of state.

 

[TimG]

15 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I said in my very first post that I was seeking information exchange here.  As an American, I'd like to know Canadians' thoughts on the institution of constitutional monarchy, both in general, and how it relates to Canada.

The constitutional monarchy is a form of government where the head of state largely ceremonial but has the authority to intervene if the democratic processes get deadlocked for some reason. This authority is normally exercised by forcing an election to be called. The ceremonial head has a responsibility to be non-partisan and to express no opinion on politics. This role is filled in Canada by the Governor General who is the Queen's representative. This form of government is not obsolete and has advantages over the republican form of government where the head of state is political. The use of the Queen specifically is largely historical but that does not mean the constitutional monarchy form of government has no relevance today. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

Certainly nostalgia plays a part, but there would be many practical issues around abolishing it. Since the repatriation the Constitution 35 years ago, there is very little the monarchy can do and almost nothing it does do other that serve a ceremonial role. Even the Queens representative in Canada, the Governor General, is more an internal role with the Queen only making a ceremonial appointment based on the 'recommendation' of the Prime Minister.

Canada has many alliances with other countries; military, economic, social, etc. Being a Commonwealth nation helps maintain and strengthen some of those links. Certainly we could do without it, but more interaction is generally mutually beneficial.

In terms of cost, yes there are costs associated with being part of a constitutional monarchy but they are nominal. What people don't think about are the costs associated with breaking away from one. The most entrenched would be our legal system where the Crown is used to represent the state, after deciding on what manner we wished to change things there would be huge costs associated with changing legislation at least at the federal and provincial level. While this would be a one time cost, I expect it would be huge.

Beside we all like to see pictures of cute babies and young prince and princesses, even you Yanks do.

[Moonlight Graham]

The monarchy has had its power degraded slowly since the Magna Carta to the point where it's nothing but a symbol with very little to no real political power.  Basically a rubber stamp and head of state ceremonial figure head.

The downside of our constitutional monarchy compared to a republic like the USA is that our executive (prime minister) wields far more power within the political system.  Less checks and balances, less separation of powers.  PM has primary control over legislation (POTUS can't introduce bills or whip their party for votes), PM also appoints all senators, all Supreme Court justices, chooses cabinet, appoints the governor general, and can largely choose when elections are called.  Most of the checks on the PM's power is appointed by the PM.  Luckily rebellion within the party, plus elections every 5 years, plus senators and Supreme Court justices who last longer than just one PM can also keep an arrogant PM in check enough.  The governor general is there just in case a PM goes bonkers.

[?Impact]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The downside of our constitutional monarchy compared to a republic like the USA is that our executive (prime minister) wields far more power within the political system.

While that is true when you compare Canada to the USA, I don't believe it needs to be in a constitutional monarchy. As you point out, the biggest problem is the Prime Minister makes all the appointments that could provide any checks and balances in the system. I have been arguing for a number of years that those appointments need to be made by committee with a broader representation, including provincial representation where appropriate like for appointing Senators who are supposed to represent the province.

[-TSS-]

Let's put it this way: If the monarchy didn't exist, who would today propose such a system to be invented?

[-TSS-]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The monarchy has had its power degraded slowly since the Magna Carta to the point where it's nothing but a symbol with very little to no real political power.  Basically a rubber stamp and head of state ceremonial figure head.

The downside of our constitutional monarchy compared to a republic like the USA is that our executive (prime minister) wields far more power within the political system.  Less checks and balances, less separation of powers.  PM has primary control over legislation (POTUS can't introduce bills or whip their party for votes), PM also appoints all senators, all Supreme Court justices, chooses cabinet, appoints the governor general, and can largely choose when elections are called.  Most of the checks on the PM's power is appointed by the PM.  Luckily rebellion within the party, plus elections every 5 years, plus senators and Supreme Court justices who last longer than just one PM can also keep an arrogant PM in check enough.  The governor general is there just in case a PM goes bonkers.

This topic brings to mind what happened in Australia in 1975 when the government failed to pass the budget on a number of occasions and as a result the Governor-General dismissed the government and appointed the leader of the opposition to form a new government.

That sparked a row can the GC actually do that. Actually he could and did but only when the circumstances allowed him to do so as the government was in a gridlock.

If Canada and Australia ever become republics it will be nothing else than turn the office of the GC into one of President with the so-called residual power.j

p

[TimG]

1 minute ago, -TSS- said:

Let's put it this way: If the monarchy didn't exist, who would today propose such a system to be invented?

Not sure what your point is. The concept of a ceremonial head of state exists even without monarchs. Germany and Ireland are two examples. 

[-TSS-]

The very concept of modern monarchy is shizophrenic to say the least. If we take the United Kingdom, on one hand the Queen is just a meaningless mascot with no power other than what authority she can herself exert but otherwise nothing whatsoever.

On the other hand she owns the whole country and everyone who lives in the UK is a subject to her rather than a citizen.

But yes, it is a silly anachronistic institution which has only been kept in place because of absence of commonly agreed alternative.

It is rather interesting in history that the present status of the British monarch dates from the 18th century. I mean that whoever is the king or queen must heed Parliament which makes laws. Less than 100 years ago monarchies which are abolished today, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary had a system where the monarch was the supreme authority and his word was final and not to be disputed.

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

43 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

This topic brings to mind what happened in Australia in 1975 when the government failed to pass the budget on a number of occasions and as a result the Governor-General dismissed the government and appointed the leader of the opposition to form a new government.

That sparked a row can the GC actually do that. Actually he could and did but only when the circumstances allowed him to do so as the government was in a gridlock.

If Canada and Australia ever become republics it will be nothing else than turn the office of the GC into one of President with the so-called residual power.j

In a democracy, I would like a system where each MP representing each riding has the same amount of power in the legislature.  That only makes sense.  It seems very undemocratic to me that there is a clear power hierarchy within each party, starting with the PM and party leaders, then cabinet (or shadow cabinet), then backbenchers.

That's why they created separation of powers in the U.S. system.  The executive (POTUS)/cabinet is removed from the legislature.  Not that there still isn't hierarchy, but there's much more freedom to vote on behalf of local constituents rather than whatever the party leadership wants.

[-TSS-]

Well, your system in Canada is very much like any European parliamentary democracy and therefore unlike any other system on the American continent all of them being strong Presidential republics.

 

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's why they created separation of powers in the U.S. system.  The executive (POTUS)/cabinet is removed from the legislature.  Not that there still isn't hierarchy, but there's much more freedom to vote on behalf of local constituents rather than whatever the party leadership wants.

But that freedom comes at a cost. In the US every congressman's vote is for sale to the highest bidder. We don't see that in Canada because MPs have so little power on their own and it is much harder to co-op an entire party rather than a few MPs.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

Well, your system in Canada is very much like any European parliamentary democracy and therefore unlike any other system on the American continent all of them being strong Presidential republics.

You forgot about Belize, and the British & French territories. Most of the rest however are Republics, although that has been part of the political unrest in many of them.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

But that freedom comes at a cost. In the US every congressman's vote is for sale to the highest bidder. We don't see that in Canada because MPs have so little power on their own and it is much harder to co-op an entire party rather than a few MPs.

Wouldn't all you need is proper laws to prevent that?

I think it's naive to think that doesn't happen in Canada.  Look at Trudeau now and donations from Chinese businessmen.  One could also argue it would be easier to simply target a party rather than hundreds of legislators.  The stakes are also a lot higher in US politics.  Both systems have pros and cons, but I think right now they're both rotten with corruption, but not beyond fixing.

[JamesHackerMP]

Probably a good point. No democracy to my knowledge has been able to totally eradicate corruption.  I doubt the US is that much more corrupt than a lot of other countries simply by virtue of its being a presidential republic instead of a parliamentary one.  Both systems, it seems, have their own massive flaws.  Writing a democratic constitution is not unlike being diagnosed with a severe, but treatable, illness.  The doctor advises the patient he has a choice between several different medications, each providing a unique set of side effects.  The pill the patient eventually decides to swallow is the one with the side effects (s)he can live with, with the least difficulty.

About royal-watching: have any of you watched the show The Royals? It's about a fictitious British royal family.  The king decides to ask parliament for a referendum to abolish the monarchy.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes up to the Queen (Elizabeth Hurley) and asks her, "What will the monarchy do without the People's money?" She replies: "What a pity we'll have to have the wedding in the Hamptons instead of Westminster Abbey.  Hmm, what did our last royal wedding bring in? Six billion pounds in tourism alone? I think you should be asking what will the People do without the monarchy's money!"

Whoever said that people like watching royals--especially Americans--is spot on.  I strongly suspect that if there is any group of people, in the UK at least, who are staunch monarchists it is likely the proprietors of tabloid newspapers.

About the 1975 constitutional crisis Down Under: Sir John Kerr took great personal risk firing the Whitlam Government and replacing him with the opposition leader as caretaker.  He ended his days abroad, likely for good reason.  It would not surprise me if he had received repeated death threats, though I haven't read that anywhere (just a hunch).  The move was unpopular and was seen as meddling in the democratic process.  Of course, the crisis was unlikely to have simply resolved itself.  Take notice that since then, the PM's of Australia (I am told) jealously guard and monitor the kind of authority more proper to a head of state, so that sort of thing never happens again.  In both Canada and Australia--again, from what you have all told me---it seems that the head of state (or the person acting as head of state within the realm) is being appointed by the head of government, which is in theory a no-no in parliamentary democracy, especially since you want a neutral, apolitical figure who can make sure the PM "doesn't go bonkers."  Since the GG is therefore virtually appointed (in a de facto sense) by the the PM, it's unlikely he or she will be anything but the PM's b****.

I must admit that the process of "writing" the unwritten British constitution has been a long, gradual process of the aggrandizement of Parliament at the Crown's expense.  It has developed more "organically" than its American counterpart.  Perhaps that's the strength of retaining a figurehead monarchy? Even Japan has retained theirs, but he's not only as powerless as the Queen of England by tradition, he's actually as powerless as the Queen on paper as well.  I guess that gives Queen Elizabeth and her 15 governors-general a little arbitrary "wiggle room" in an emergency or unforeseen constitutional situation (as in 1975); the emperor has no such wiggle room.  His ceremonial limitations are pretty airtight.  That said, even this American has to admit that constitutional monarchies tend to be more stable countries than some republics, even presidential ones.  We seem to be one of very few presidential republics that haven't had one coup d'etat after another.

So the whole point of having a constitutional monarch--if we boiled it down to a simple oversimplification--is to prevent the rise of an absolute one? Not so much what she can do, but what she cannot, is paramount?

[-1=e^ipi]

The monarchy is a relic of the past and should be abolished. It violates egalitarianism because it suggests that some people in society should get their position based upon birthright and it violates secularism because the head of state of Canada is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church. Most people think the monarchy only has a benign influence on society but I disagree. By creating a precedent of birth right it helps justify other birth right anti-egalitarian aspects of Canadian society, specifically with respect to the existence of the 'Indian' act and how Canada gives special status to some individuals in society on the basis of birth right. Also, since the monarchy is a relic of the past, the monarchy indirectly helps the SJWs attain power because SJW claims about society being a white supremacist hetero-patriarchy or whatever are partially supported by the existence of the monarchy. Sweden is a country that is much further down the rabbit hole of SJW insanity and they also happen to be a monarchy.

[Smallc]

9 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The monarchy is a relic of the past and should be abolished. It violates egalitarianism because it suggests that some people in society should get their position based upon birthright and it violates secularism because the head of state of Canada is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church.

In fact no - it just happens to be the same person.  The Head of State of Canada in the role of head of state is not the head of any church.

[-1=e^ipi]

What I wrote is correct. The head of state of Canada under our current system is; necessarily the British Monarch, and the British Monarch is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church.

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The monarchy is a relic of the past and should be abolished. It violates egalitarianism because it suggests that some people in society should get their position based upon birthright and it violates secularism because the head of state of Canada is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church. Most people think the monarchy only has a benign influence on society but I disagree. By creating a precedent of birth right it helps justify other birth right anti-egalitarian aspects of Canadian society, specifically with respect to the existence of the 'Indian' act and how Canada gives special status to some individuals in society on the basis of birth right. Also, since the monarchy is a relic of the past, the monarchy indirectly helps the SJWs attain power because SJW claims about society being a white supremacist hetero-patriarchy or whatever are partially supported by the existence of the monarchy. Sweden is a country that is much further down the rabbit hole of SJW insanity and they also happen to be a monarchy.

The Monarchy had nothing to do with writing our Constitution and Charter of Rights and has no part in interpreting them. That is our Supreme Court's role. The Anglican Church is the Church of England, not Canada. Her position as its head has nothing to do with her role as Queen of Canada. We decide what her role is as our Queen.

[Wilber]

People seem to see some value in Monarchies. When you look at the remaining European democratic monarchies, (Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) none seem in a rush to get rid of them.

[-TSS-]

5 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The monarchy is a relic of the past and should be abolished. It violates egalitarianism because it suggests that some people in society should get their position based upon birthright and it violates secularism because the head of state of Canada is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church. Most people think the monarchy only has a benign influence on society but I disagree. By creating a precedent of birth right it helps justify other birth right anti-egalitarian aspects of Canadian society, specifically with respect to the existence of the 'Indian' act and how Canada gives special status to some individuals in society on the basis of birth right. Also, since the monarchy is a relic of the past, the monarchy indirectly helps the SJWs attain power because SJW claims about society being a white supremacist hetero-patriarchy or whatever are partially supported by the existence of the monarchy. Sweden is a country that is much further down the rabbit hole of SJW insanity and they also happen to be a monarchy.

A few weeks ago I tried to make a conversation about this topic on this site. Somebody, I can't remember who, posted that the whole issue is irrelevant in Canada and at the bottom of the list of urgency.

I think it is no co-incidence that New Zealand is a very pro-monarchy country while their much bigger neighbour Australia even had a referendum whether to ditch the monarchy.

Similarly, I guess for Canada the monarchy and remaining part of the British Commonwealth is a question of identity which sets them apart from their much stronger neighbour. 

 

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

the British Monarch is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church.

You mean the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not the head of the Anglican Church. The head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Supreme Governor's role is similar to our Governor General, although with respect to the Church. It is for the most part ceremonial. From a practical standpoint, the Queen (Supreme Governor) appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the Prime Minister who in turn is advised by church leaders

[Peter F]

18 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

So the whole point of having a constitutional monarch--if we boiled it down to a simple oversimplification--is to prevent the rise of an absolute one? Not so much what she can do, but what she cannot, is paramount?

I think that's it exactly. 

[Smallc]

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

What I wrote is correct. The head of state of Canada under our current system is; necessarily the British Monarch, and the British Monarch is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church.

What you wrote is not correct, as those are two different offices.

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, Wilber said:

The Monarchy had nothing to do with writing our Constitution and Charter of Rights and has no part in interpreting them. That is our Supreme Court's role.

 

Good thing I made no such claim. I was referring to how it creates a psychological president for society at large, I was not referring to legal effects.

 

But now that you bring it up, the queen signed our charter. If we want to get constitutional or charter change, the monarch could try to veto it.