Should Canada Become a Parliamentary Republic

Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are inextricably bound by the membership of a political association, the Commonwealth of Nations. There is a heated discussion in Canada these days regarding the form of government and the possibility of choosing the head of the state independently. The idea of disaffiliating from the British protectorate seems to find more and more supporters in Canadian society. However, the number of proponents of Canada’s remaining a constitutional monarchy overweighs so far. The form of the government and the choice between either tradition of power or the elective principle is important political issues from the historical and social perspectives. In this paper, my argument is that Canada should retain constitutional monarchy as the vast majority of Canadian society supports this particular form of government, but most importantly, constitutional monarchy in Canada guarantees the citizens proper living conditions and defends the citizens’ rights.

The formation of the Commonwealth of Nations and conferring independence to Canada after the British Empire had dissolved were both important and complex historical processes. In its current state, the constitutional model of Canada is closely connected to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the Preamble to the Constitution of Canada, it is agreed that Canada accepts the constitutional principles that are very similar to the ones that exist in the United Kingdom. De jure, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the state of Canada. Prime Minister and Governor-General, in their turn, perform a function of stewards. The function of governing and legislation in Canada is placed upon the Prime Minister and the General Governor, who is appointed by the Queen. The Prime Minister’s recommendation is taken into account. The General Governor, in his turn, is charged with the responsibility of appointing the Prime Minister. A system of that kind has proved to be effective. The principle of the so-called Royal prerogative regulates the executive and legislative branches of power in Canada. Specifically, the Prime Minister and the Governor-General of Canada have the right of proroguing the Parliament, whilst a formal head of the state, that is to say, a King or a Queen has the right to convene the Parliament. The Royal prerogative in Canada is delimited by Constitutional convention, statute, and common law. The Royal prerogative and the constitutional principles of Canada are determined by the so-called Westminster model, which Canada has imported in the year 1867. Technically, the only aspect the Westminster model does not take into account is the misuse of power. Consequently, the underestimation of the fact that the stakeholders (political forces and the political elites of Canada and the United Kingdom, in this particular case) may potentially start to take the advantage of one another is, perhaps, the most noticeable flaw of the Westminster model. The researchers admit that the distinctive feature of the Canadian model of constitutionalism is un-cooperation and partly rivalry between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. At the same time, there is a great deal of resemblance between the Senate of Canada and the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

As far as the British monarchs’ role in the political life of Canada is concerned, it is important to admit the following. The validity of a premise that the titles of the King/the Queen of Canada and the King/the Queen of the United Kingdom are bestowed upon the same person has been questioned in year 2013 by the Succession to the Throne Act, The point is that the office of the King/the Queen of the United Kingdom and the office of the King/the Queen of Canada are two separate institutions although they are “held by one person”. Queen Elizabeth II is considered the figurehead of the state of Canada. However, Her Majesty enjoys great popularity amongst the residents of Canada. The last Succession to the Throne Act has contributed to the ambiguity of the role the British Royal House plays in Canada. Technically, it is due to the latest Succession to the Throne Act passed in the Government of Canada that the possibility emerged for a different member of the Royal Family to ascend to the throne of Canada rather than the one who is on the throne in Britain. The Government of Canada advocates the same person to be in the head of the state in the United Kingdom and Canada. The hereditary principle of power in Canada stands as opposed to the elective one. The principles of the executive power in Canada should be expressed more vividly to eliminate the negative impact of all possible prejudices and biases on that matter. Apart from that, scholars admit that “there is real confusion about the essential features of responsible government in Canada”. The so-called pro forma bill is called to systematize and thus eliminate the ambiguity of the executive power system in Canada.

By and large, while contemplating the Canadian path of monarchism, constitutionalism, and democracy, one should consider the following statement: “The historical memory that most defines their democracy is the product of a civil war, a glorious revolution, and the establishment of Parliamentary supremacy”. The forgoing statement is of paramount importance as it determines the constitutional principles in Canada. “Historical events manifest themselves in the institutions they create and thus in the political culture that these institutions constrain, shape and create” . Therefore, the fact that traditionalism is peculiar to historical self-consciousness of the people of Canada is self-explanatory.

There is a cohort of scholars who position themselves as the proponents of Canada becoming a multinational federation and producing a shared identity among the state’s residents. One way or another, the scholars admit that multiculturalism, monarchy, constitutionalism, accommodation, and the art of making compromises are all woven into the historical canvas of the state of Canada. Developing this statement further, it is possible to assume that there is no guarantee that in Canada in particular the changes in the form of the government (either formal or factual) might work for the good of people. Canadian model of constitutional monarchy, on the other hand, has provided itself to be viable and sufficient within the state itself. Lastly, the social union within the community of Canada can be “nurtured best through … organic constitutional growth rather than through a grand populist effort at reconciling differences” . The premise implies that social life in Canada abounds with inconsistencies, contradictions, and ambiguities. But most importantly, the assertion testifies that all social elements are interested and participate actively in elaborating a socio-political model that all the parties would be compatible with.

As far as the case of Canada is concerned, there is a link between the right to self-determination, self-consciousness, and cultural identity. Each of these three notions is intrinsically bound with one another. This fact in particular gives insight into why some people in Canada stand opposed to the idea of retaining a constitutional monarchy. On the face of it, the people of Canada find the idea of being ruled by the sovereign whose residence is over the sea absurd and even unpalatable.

Each of the aforementioned factors has led to the fact that a heated public discussion in Canada ensued. In Canadian society, there are elements that advocate the exiting form of the government. Apparently, there are those who criticize it. Evidently, what the people of Canada aspire to most of all in political sense is independence in managing their own household. With regard to this, nowadays there is a tendency towards even more profound diversification processes.

There is no denying the fact that “the Crown is woven into the fabric of the Canadian story and constitutional evolution” and Queen Elizabeth’s II contribution, in this respect, is exceptional . Apart from performing the role of a figurehead of Canada, the Queen reigns in the dominion of her own, that is to say, in the United Kingdom. The Queen’s function as a restraining force, at the same time, is of crucial importance. The British monarchy and the British Royal House in particular incarnate traditionalism. By and large, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Commonwealth can be viewed as the outposts of monarchy in the modern world. Thanks to the British Royal family and Queen Elizabeth II, monarchy lives on and remains viable until nowadays. Undoubtedly, the variant of constitutional monarchy that exists in Canada nowadays has proved itself to be sufficient. A constitutional monarchy, the Canadian case, determines the state’s domestic and foreign policies. But more importantly, constitutionalism and monarchy in Canada shape real lives and relationships between people for they are inherently related to and have become an integral element of tradition. In this respect, dignity, honor, peace, and the life of plenty is the ambition of the people of Canada. Constitutional monarchy, with regard to this, works a sustainable and sufficient model. Thus, it is suitable for the broad social masses in Canada. Therefore, there is no need changing it.

Apparently, the public opinion must be and for sure it will be taken into account while making a decision whether to retain monarchy in Canada or to abolish it. Public moods, in their turn, indicate whether changes are needed at first place. In other words, the opinions of publicity and public sentiments, as a rule, turn out to be the first portents of the great changes that are about to come. Opinions regarding the form of the government and the need of switching to the elective principle are diverse. Mostly, the vast majority of people in Canada are satisfied with the existing social and political reality, while the rest are not.

The change of the form of the government and the transition to the elective principle in Canada in particular has proved to be important issues politically and socially. Constitutionalism and monarchy are considered a social reality in Canada. Traditionalism, in its turn, takes a special place in the lives of the residents of Canada and the social life of the state itself. Constitutional monarchy guarantees that the requirements of the Canadian citizens are met. But most importantly, constitutional monarchy is capable of defending the rights of the people of Canada. All things considered, Canada should remain a constitutional monarchy.

Bibliography

Hicks, Bruce M. “British and Canadian experience with the royal prerogative.” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 2010: 18-24.

Hicks, Bruce M. “Pro forma bills and parliamentary independence from the Crown.” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Winter 2009: 13-22.

Nicholson, Rob. “Changing the Line of Succession to the Crown.” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 2013: 8-10.

Toffoli, Garry and Paul Benoit. “More is Needed to Change the Rules of Succession for Canada.” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 2013: 10-13.

Russell, Peter H. “Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canada become a sovereign people? The question revisited.” In Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Become a Sovereign People?, 9-32. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2004.

? Bruce M. Hicks, “British and Canadian experience with the royal prerogative.” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 2010, 18