HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE LETTERS SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Elitist,
Racist, Religionist, Sexist, Inegalitarian:
Canada’s
Head-of-State
by
Kim Petersen
Dissident
Voice
November 4, 2003
It is true
that the most imperfect republic is a thousand times better than the most
enlightened monarchy, for at least in the republic there are moments when, though
always exploited, the people are not oppressed, while in monarchies they are
never anything else.
--
Mikhail Bakunin
The
social-capitalist states of continental northern Europe -- Belgium, the
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden -- are often portrayed as leading
exemplars of egalitarianism in the world. The pretense to egalitarianism
reveals a paradox when one considers that simultaneously these states maintain
the elitist system of monarchy, whereby only the offspring of a privileged
family can aspire to the role of head-of-state.
It is
contended that the monarchs in these northern European nations are popular and
that the citizenry support the monarchy. This may well be true but it doesn’t
detract from the fact that the scions of one family are born into prestige that
is unattainable, except through marriage, for the progeny of other families.
Nevertheless it not argued here for overturning the democratic will of the
people to institute egalitarianism.
Canada is
often perceived as a nation along the lines of the social-capitalist states of
Scandinavia. Likewise Canada is also a constitutional monarchy. However,
Canada’s monarchy is not homegrown but represented by British royalty.
The popularity
of the British monarchy ebbs and flows depending on the temporal propinquity of
the most recent royal scandal. The British monarchy differs from the
continental European monarchies in that it enjoys greater pomp and ceremony and
the finest life among an extended royal lineage. Another major difference is
that the British monarchy still reigns in many countries of the former British
Empire.
Most
former colonies, however, have shaken loose from the British monarchy. Those
countries where the British monarch continues to function as the head-of-state
include countries where British subjects populated lands new to past British
explorers; Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are examples of this.
In each of
these countries republican movements have arisen. Prominent is the movement in
Australia, which was unsuccessful in its republican referendum in late 1999 but
this was due more to political chicanery than pro-monarchical sentiment among
Australians.
The US-UK
invasion of Iraq has buttressed the republican position that it is time to put
an end to the British monarch’s reign as Canada’s head-of-state. The Canadian
government stakes its policy to the multilateral system headed by the UN. As
such it did not openly sanction the violence against Iraq. Britain’s Queen
Elizabeth, however, gave her blessing
and good wishes to the dispatch of British troops. Canada’s head-of-state
had assumed a stance fundamentally contrary to that of the Canadian government.
This was not some trivial matter but rather the launching of what the Nuremberg
Law deemed the supreme crime, an unprovoked aggression on another nation.
Canada was trapped in this farcical situation by its head-of-state.
Yet
despite what should have been a national calamity, this received little media
attention in Canada. Why?
It seems
that many Canadians are unaware that their head-of-state is a foreigner awarded
the position by happenstance of birth. They view the British queen as a link
with Canada’s historical past. Indeed one of the major arguments against
abolishing the monarchy is the desire to preserve tradition. This argument
rings weak because of the major historical changes in the institution of the
monarchy itself. Historically the monarch wielded great power; however,
nowadays, the British monarch has been reduced to an expensive figurehead.
In the
hotbed of Canadian colonial sentiment, the British Columbia provincial capital
of Victoria, named after a former British monarch, there are voices of
displeasure expressed at the monarchial ties. Shane Caulder of the Capital
Region Race Relations Association states: “As far as
our organization is concerned, the royal family epitomizes white power.”
Jonathan
Makepeace, originator of the Res
Publica: International Anti-Monarchy Web Directory notes that “Buckingham
Palace only lists the predominantly white countries in which the queen is head
of state on their website.”
It would
be harder to choose a less representative head-of-state for the Canadian people.
To Canada’s First Nations the British queen symbolizes the imposition of
colonialism that led to the cultural repression and decimation of the
indigenous peoples. To French-Canadians the monarchy serves as an ignominious
reminder of the defeat inflicted upon the French by the British centuries ago.
Why is it that such a divisive figure still represents Canada?
Yet a core
of sentiment for the monarch still exists itself in Canada. This is not
surprising since many Canadians trace their ancestry back to England.
John
Aimers, head of The Monarchist League of Canada (MLC), sees support for the
monarchy as one way for Canada to set itself apart from the “cloying embrace”
of the United States. Curious, to say the least, Mr. Aimers would have
Canadians accept a nationalist argument rejecting a next-door neighbor in
preference of a far-flung aristocracy.
The MLC
website features arguments in favor of the monarchy.
First, it argues that Canada has always been a monarchy. This is the genetic
fallacy: arguing a point based on its origin, but not its justification. The
MLC argument is equivalent to maintaining that since the middle-eastern
monarchy of Jordan has always been a dictatorship it should continue to remain
one. At any rate this argument is only partially true since the republic set up
by Iroquois confederacy predates Canadian confederation.
The MLC
asserts that the queen is more democratic than a president since she represents
all Canadians whereas a president represents a political faction. It begs the
question of which Canadians the queen was representing when she gave her
blessing to the British troops about to invade Iraq?
The preposterousness
of the MLC’s stance is manifested by its claim that Canada is the land of the
British monarchs. The First Nations among others would dispute this.
Canada
today is a nation of immigrants and bills itself proudly as a multicultural
mosaic. The monarchy stands in contradiction to this billing although the MLC,
in a stretch of credulity, claims that intermingling among European royalty
constitutes multiculturalism.
The
staggering illogic of the MLC statements at times defies comment. Regarding the
inegalitarianism of a hereditarily-determined head-of-state, the MLC asserts:
“In choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common
denominator in the world -- the accident of birth -- Canadians implicitly
proclaim their faith in human equality.”
Having a
foreign head-of-state poses other quandaries for Canadians. For instance,
Canadians who take the oath of citizenship are required to swear to the queen.
Civil servants and parliamentarians are likewise required to pledge allegiance
to the queen. It is a humiliation for many Canadians or would-be Canadians to
be compelled to submit to an elite foreign figurehead.
The
institution of Canada’s head-of-state militates against both democracy and
egalitarianism. Obviously there are many Canadians who cringe at the knowledge
that their head-of-state is an appointed foreigner living abroad.
Polls
often show conflicting results regarding Canadian attitudes toward the monarchy
but a recent poll indicated a trend to republicanism. A poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid in February
2002 found that 48 % of Canadians consider the constitutional monarchy
“outmoded” and prefer a republican government with an elected head of state.
Revealingly
65 percent responded ‘yes’ to the statement denying a formal role for the royal
family in Canadian society: “the Royals are simply celebrities nothing more.”
Growth of
movement:
It is
difficult to put republicanism on the political platform in Canada. Politicians
are loath to alienate a certain constituency and this makes it difficult to
push the republican movement in Canada.
Ben
Albright heads the British chapter of Citizens for a Canadian
Republic (CCR), “a non-profit organization committed to the promotion
of a democratic republican alternative to our current constitutional monarchy.”
Mr. Albright identifies a trend:
I think that support for the monarchy is
slowly but surely starting to dwindle. For evidence of this in Canada one
only has to look at the efforts of CCR, ... CCR is over 1 year old and in that
year not only has it not simply faded away, it has grown by leaps and
bounds to the point where we now have international chapters. However, many
people in both the United Kingdom and Canada continue to support the
monarchy. This support, I believe is mainly based on misconceptions. The first
major misconception is what I call the US affect. Many people, particularly I
think in Canada, are under the belief that by becoming a republic we will
become American. In my opinion, nothing can be further than the truth. Canada
is a unique separate nation with its own values; one only has to visit the two
nations to see that. Consider though France and Germany, two neighboring
republics and yet, no one would ever call them similar.
The second major misconception, mainly I think in the UK, is the idea that the monarchy helps democracy -- as the monarch can block our Prime Ministers. How does this help democracy? How does having an unelected figurehead who may be able to block a democratically elected prime minister help democracy? One only has to look at these misconceptions to realize that they do not make sense.
While
sentiment for the monarchy stills runs high, it is being challenged. The
Guardian newspaper has launched a legal assault
on the monarchy claiming it contravenes the Human Rights Act.
Clearly an institution that operates on the basis of primogeniture and bans
Catholics, and arguably all non-Protestants, is behaving in a sexist,
religionist manner.
The
monarchy cannot be expected to go quietly. Renowned economist John
Kenneth Galbraith said: “People of privilege will
always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part
of their advantage.” Nonetheless it is high
time that Canada eradicates this blot on democracy and egalitarianism -- the
replacement of which has been demonstrated to be unnecessary.
A majority
of Canadians opposed empire in Iraq and as awareness grows of the colonial
implications of the monarchy in Canada, it will dawn on more Canadians that the
monarchy in Canada is an institution that doesn’t belong in an aspiring
progressive nation.
Kim
Petersen lives in Nova Scotia and is a regular
contributor to Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: kimpetersen@gyxi.dk
* Not
Getting It: The Mind of Thomas Friedman
* Scaremongering
Against Muslims, The Importance of Reading, and Media Titillation
* Recalcitrance
and Exasperation
* CBC and
the Dearth of Political Issues
* Dispelling
the Orwellian Spin: The Real Foreign Terrorists
* China,
Neoliberalism, and the WTO
* An Act of
Cowardice that Must Surely be Unrivalled in History: Challenging the Assumption of Valour
* The
Buck Stops Here or Does It?
* Superpower
in Suspended Animation
* Scarcely
a Peep in Mainland China
* Pulp
Fiction at the New York Times: Fawning at the Feet of Mammon
* Canadian Predation in Africa