Battle Royal Page 18

  Much is at stake in this debate, and it is one that will engulf us as Elizabeth II’s reign comes to its close. The debate is also framed and publicized by well-established interest groups. The leading organization on the loyalist side is the Monarchist League of Canada. Their main opponent is Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR). As these two sides have engaged in heated verbal skirmishes with each other for decades, three key types of arguments have come to define the battle lines: constitutional, historical, and personal. The first two — constitutional and historical — very much appeal to the mind, and they are the focus of this chapter; the latter — the personal — resonates much more with the heart, and we will look at it in the following chapter.

  Constitutional Perspectives: The Republican Attack

  The existence of a hereditary monarchy in a modern liberal democracy offends democracy itself. This line of attack has been offered by such critics as Jeremy Paxman, Michael Bliss, and John D. Whyte.[3] One of the core principles of democratic rule is that executive and legislative leaders, including the head of state, should be elected. This principle ensures that leaders become leaders through the consent of the citizenry, that they must retain the consent of the governed if they are to remain as leaders, and that citizens maintain the right to remove leaders in whom they no longer have confidence.

  Hereditary monarchy, in principle, contradicts all of these democratic norms. The head of state is not elected, he or she is in no formal way accountable to the elected representatives of the people, and he or she can only be removed from office through extraordinary constitutional manoeuvres. In the circumstances facing Canada, moreover, where the headship of state is vested in the historic royal family of the United Kingdom, the monarchical principle also means, as CCR have said, that “no Canadian citizen can ever aspire to be head of state of our own country.”[4] To republicans, this fact is doubly ironic and disturbing. The head of state is supposed to be the figurehead of the nation and the symbolic head of the Canadian family. He or she is supposed to be someone who represents and promotes all that is good, noble, and virtuous about Canada and Canadians. Yet, given the nature of the monarchy, this person, the Queen, is not a Canadian; she does not reside in Canada; she has not lived the Canadian experience. Unless the monarchy is abolished, no Canadian will ever be able to play this role, because the Act of Settlement, 1701 places the succession firmly in the hands of the English House of Windsor. To republicans, this law is insulting. It undermines the long and hard-fought quest for Canada to be independent from our former colonial master. Far from being a unifying figure, the British monarch serves to divide Canadians between monarchists and republicans, while symbolically telling all Canadians that they are still in­fer­ior to this aristocratic English family.

  The hereditary principle itself is scorned by republicans. For very good reason, we don’t have hereditary airline pilots or brain surgeons, so why do we continue to have hereditary heads of state? The American revolutionary Thomas Paine skewered the idea as early as 1776:

  To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho’ himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.[5]

  In a modern liberal democracy grounded on the principles of equality and meritocracy, everyone is legally equal to every other person. No one is to be discriminated against on the basis of innate human characteristics. In such a nation, success in life is based on individual merit, determination, and work ethic. Social advancement, access to education, wealth, and upward mobility should be based on individual intelligence and hard work, not inherited privilege.

  Monarchy turns its back on these egalitarian ideals. With monarchy, birth is everything. George, the young son of Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, provided he lives long enough and the monarchy in Canada has not been abolished, will one day be king of Canada. If he ever ascends this throne, it will not be because he is exceptionally bright or clever or intelligent or well educated or sensitive or wise, though he may be all of these things, but because he was the first child born to his parents. An accident of birth will place him on the throne, and, long before that, the very fact of who he is will give him access to wealth and privilege that most people can only dream about. Monarchy thus stands as the epitome of elitism in a society professing to be egalitarian. Even though the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that all Canadians are “equal before and under the law,” the monarchy symbolizes and perpetuates the worst of the British system of unequal class hierarchy and discrimination, with enormous wealth and privilege going to a select few. Many aspiring Canadian citizens who have come to Canada from any number of countries (including the United Kingdom) to escape archaic but still very real systems of class distinction, find themselves having to swear allegiance to a monarch standing at the very apex of the British class system. “The truth is,” writes Margaret Wente, “that the monarchy stands for much that has held Canada back. It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place. In Quebec the Royals are regarded as an insult.”[6]

  Wente’s last point highlights a common challenge to the preservation of the monarchy in Canada. The institution has never been popular in Quebec for obvious historical and cultural reasons. In all of Canada, French Canadians show the highest enthusiasm for abolishing the monarchy outright. To many republicans, such abolition would actually be a service to building Canadian national unity. If most English Canadians were to join with their fellow French-Canadian citizens and vote to abolish the monarchy in this country, this action would send a powerful signal to French Canada. It would proclaim that Canada is now completely independent from the United Kingdom and the last vestige of British colonialism has been finally expunged from our constitution and our society.[7]

  It is not only the monarchy’s link to a dubious imperialist past that drives many republicans to desire a separation from the monarchy; to its critics, another feature of the British monarchy is deeply troubling. The sovereign is supreme governor of the Church of England, so must be an Anglican. Historically, the Act of Settlement, 1701 prohibited any member of the royal family ascending the throne if he or she were married to a Roman Catholic. In 2011, the United Kingdom Parliament modified these requirements, with the agreement of the other Commonwealth realms, rescinding the rule of male primogeniture and the prohibition on the sovereign being married to a Roman Catholic. This amendment, however, made no alteration to the requirement that, as titular head of the Church of England, the sovereign has to be Anglican.

  To Canadian republicans, this limiting religious component is offensive. As CCR argues, “Canada’s head of state should conform to Canadian laws of religious equality.” While the 2011 reforms are good, though long overdue, the problem remains that the monarchy, by law, discriminates against all religions other than the Anglican one, preventing “members of the Roman Catholic faith … Jews, Hindus, Muslims or anyone not a member of that Protestant denomination from becoming Canada’s head of state.” To the CCR, the very institution of the monarchy and the monarch herself stand in violation of the Canadian constitution because “Section 15(1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of ‘race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’”[8]

  The solution to these and ot
her failings, according to republicans, is for the institution itself to be abolished in Canada, with most republicans willing to wait for Elizabeth II’s reign to end before effecting this change to the Canadian constitution. The disestablishment of the royal family in Canada would then allow for Canadians to choose their own head of state. Here, a number of options present themselves. A radical one would be to completely change the Canadian system of government, ending our parliamentary tradition and opting for an American-style congressional form of government with a directly elected president, as found in the United States. This president would be both head of government and head of state. Most republicans in Canada, however, endorse the maintenance of our parliamentary tradition, simply wishing to elevate the role of the governor general to head of state. This latter option is the position of the CCR and republicans such as John Whyte, Michael Bliss, and Edward McWhinney.[9]

  Establishing the governor general as Canada’s head of state, though, requires more than just adding these words to the job description. As it stands now, the governor general is appointed by the Queen. Were the monarchy defunct, who would appoint or select the new governor general? Would the governor be appointed by the prime minister, as is the current custom? Or, would she or he be appointed by a select committee of notable Canadians reporting to the prime minister? A majority vote in the House of Commons? The Senate? A decision of the joint House of Commons and the Senate? Agreement of the prime minister and the premiers? Or should the new head of state be directly elected by the Canadian people? On these matters, republicans differ. It is fair to say, though, that most republicans now tend to support the idea of a directly elected head of state, with this official being termed either the governor general, or more simply the governor.

  Constitutional Perspectives: The Monarchist Defence and Counter-Attack

  The republican arguments raised against the monarchy on constitutional grounds are many and powerful, and they are hard to refute. Nevertheless, the loyalist defence of monarchy in Canada is equally rooted in the constitution. Monarchists simply bring a very different perspective to the fundamental rules and principles governing this country: one highlighting the monarchy’s contribution to Canadian democracy while also warning about the political consequences of changing the constitutional status quo.

  The monarchist defence of the Crown-as-monarch as head of state is based in a traditional syllogism: the country needs a head of state; the head of state has always been a monarch; therefore the country needs a monarch as head of state. While this logic is completely illogical to a republican, it satisfies the monarchists’ reverence for the past and their need for a sense of order. The principle of hereditary monarchy always ensures that there is a head of state, that the people know who the next head of state will be, and that this next head of state has been trained and prepared for the duties that he or she has been fated to undertake. As John Fraser writes:

  The hereditary principle, which upsets many people, seems to me to be a blessing. We embrace our historical links and eliminate any worry about the succession because it simply happens, just like that. The famous proclamation “The King is dead, long live the King” is deployed not because God says so, or a foreign power says so, or because the forces of history say so. It is because we the people in Canada say so; we will it to happen that way.[10]

  Republicans contest this defence as nothing more than a lame justification for an archaic selection process insulting to democratic principles and historical understanding. When, republicans will ask, were Canadians ever given a choice as to whether we “willed” the selection of our head of state to be done in this manner? To monarchists, however, the principle and practice of hereditary leadership has virtue, perfectly suiting the monarch to the task at hand.

  Monarchists make much of the idea that a sovereign is born to reign. The eldest son or daughter of a king or queen knows that his or her time to reign will come, and he or she must be prepared to assume these duties before the country and the Commonwealth. Biographies of Edward VII, George V, and Elizabeth II all stress the formal education these individuals received as young royals.[11] They were schooled in English, British, and Commonwealth history; British and Commonwealth politics and government; the evolution of the British constitution, and the principle and practice of responsible government; as well as on the special nature of the reserve powers of the Crown. Beyond the formal education, they learned from the informal experience of witnessing their parent perform the role, observing the routine life of a constitutional monarch being played out in their own family setting and growing accustomed to the idea that their own life has a unique and predetermined public and constitutional function. In a rare royal autobiography, Edward, Duke of Windsor, formerly Edward VIII, wrote that he was well versed in the knowledge that the ceremonial life of the Crown belied “an occupation of considerable drudgery.” As the duke explained, “From long observation of my father’s [George V’s] activities, I knew only too well what I was in for. The picture of him ‘doing his boxes,’ to use his own phrase, had long represented to me the relentless grind of the Monarch’s daily routine.”[12] It is just this type of upbringing and family experience that monarchists see as the vital pathway toward the throne. “And we should consider,” notes Frank MacKinnon, “that heredity has been retained not for the sake of privilege, but for the practical reasons that it is one of the safest and least controversial methods of selection, and that it provides apprenticeship in a unique and difficult kind of work. Indeed, other kinds of political leaders have a choice of vocation; the monarch has none.”[13] As the young Princess Elizabeth said in 1947, on the occasion of her twenty-first birthday radio address to the Commonwealth and Empire, “I serve.”

  There is much more to the loyalist defence, however, than heredity. To modern eyes, heredity is actually the weakest and most suspect part of the monarchists’ defence of the Crown. A more powerful argument emerges when loyalists address the political role of the monarchy as a defender of the constitution. Monarchists such as John Fraser, Eugene Forsey, Frank MacKinnon, and D. Michael Jackson stress that far from being an institution at odds with Canadian democracy, the monarchy has evolved, over time, into a fundamental guarantor of democracy and the constitution itself. Executive power in this country is formally vested not in the hands of any prime minister or premier, but in the sovereign. First ministers earn the right to exercise such power by virtue of gaining and commanding the confidence of parliamentary assemblies in accordance with the principles of responsible government. But no first minister and no government ever own the powers they exercise. Such power is temporarily granted to them — and only for so long as they do in fact command the will of the assemblies democratically elected by the Canadian people. If and when a first minister and his or her government is defeated, they must resign, with all executive power reverting back to the Crown so as to be transferred to the new first minister and government that does command such legislative support. To monarchists, this principle is vital. Power and legitimacy ultimately reside in the Crown, with the monarch being the custodian of state authority. “As a custodian,” writes Frank MacKinnon, “a much different official from the possessor of powers, the sovereign holds the powers on behalf of the people, and he or she is the personal symbol of authority, which [human beings] find necessary to have in every system. But the sovereign may not normally wield these powers personally.”[14]

  The Queen and her Canadian vice-regents also possess the reserve powers of the Crown, and these powers come into play in a parliamentary democracy during times of constitutional crisis when it is unclear which party and party leader command the confidence of a parliamentary assembly. They also are put into use if and when a first minister engages in behaviour that is abusive to the rights of Parliament, the rights of the people, and the very fabric of the constitution. In these circumstances, the governor general or a lieutenant governor, and on rare occasions the sovereign, may exercise the res
erve powers to summon into existence a parliamentary assembly, to refuse the prorogation or dissolution of such a body, to refuse the questionable and unconstitutional advice of a first minister, to dismiss a government and its first minister, and to appoint a new first minister who can command the confidence of the democratically elected parliamentary assembly of the nation or a province. “The offices of Governor General and Lieutenant Governor,” writes Frank MacKinnon, “are constitutional fire extinguishers with a potent mixture of powers for use in great emergencies. Like real extinguishers, they appear in bright colours and are strategically located. But everyone hopes their emergency powers will never be used.”[15] As Elizabeth II herself said in a rare statement respecting her place in the political system: “The role of a constitutional monarch is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to assure the legality of its measures, and to guarantee the execution of the popular will.”[16]

  Monarchists also rebut the republican line that the Queen is a foreigner, whose “foreignness” detracts both from her legitimacy as a Canadian head of state and from Canada’s self-respect as an independent country. Most of the functions of the monarch in Canada, both real and ceremonial, are performed by Canadian vice-regents. To monarchists, however, the Queen herself, and her heirs and successors, are Canadian. The sovereign is Queen of Canada, separate and distinct from all other royal titles that she holds, and this distinction will be true for all of her successors. To the Monarchist League of Canada, Elizabeth II is one of us, and through her character and contribution to Canadian society she has demonstrated the utmost loyalty and devotion to Canada. “By this standard,” the Monarchist League asserts, “our Queen is as Canadian as can be: In her length of service to the country, in her pride in being our Queen and our reciprocal affection to her, in her being the embodiment of citizenship, the source of law and the guardian of the constitution, and in her linking us to the multi-cultural peaceful alliance that is the Commonwealth.”[17]