Blog Archives

Prince's Charities Canada Hiring Intern

8/19/2015

News through the grapevine is that
Prince's Charities Canada is looking
for an intern. The position will deal with
communications. For further details
you may send an email to this address.
Prince Charles is involved in a large
number of worthy causes and this is
a good chance to help out.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Republicans & Democracy

8/10/2015

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

So the Canadian election is underway (number 42 for those
keeping track). The candidates are slowly revving up their
campaigns and the media has gone into full election mode. I thought this might be a good time to get into a topic I've
mulling over for some time.

Republicans like to say that the monarchy is an undemocratic
institution. I would like to dissect that claim.

When To Elect

For starters republicans tend to base their claims on the
position being unelected. The monarch/governor general is
neither the only unelected position in the government nor the
most common. That distinction goes to the entire judicial branch. They have even rejected laws passed by a democratic
Parliament (something the Monarch of Canada has never
done). And yet I don't see anyone clamoring to elect the
Supreme Court. And why would they? There is understanding (based in part on observing our neighbors to the South) that
electing members of the judiciary would not help the courts
do a better job and might in fact damage them through
partisanship. There is an understanding that, under specific
circumstances, it is not desirable to elect a position.

We choose to elect Members of Parliament because we
recognize that partisan competition fuels debate and helps
keep everyone on their best behavior. We do this with the full knowledge that said competition can, and does, create
divisions in society (as the last 10 years makes clear). The
office of the monarch is not a position that requires elections
as it is not a position that crafts policy. The Crown is there to
provide stability, non-partisan leadership and to represent
Canada. It is also the hidden emergency button in case
Canada goes off the rails. None of these roles are enhanced
by elections.

And, as I have noted before, directly-elected heads of state
have been shown to cause a 5-7% decrease in voter turnout
for legislative elections. Indirectly-elected presidents also
have difficulties it has been found.

When To Inherit

Another claim that republicans make is that the monarchy
is somehow undemocratic by virtue of being hereditary. This
is expressed as the monarchy being an "anachronism" or
"medieval" institution. You want to know what other
position is hereditary? Citizenship. Once gained, citizenship
is passed on regardless of qualifications or behavior. It also
confers specific rights on its holders (voting rights for one).
But citizens don't hold a place in government, I can hear you saying. Don't they? The republican ideal is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. In the republican
ideal the people are central to the formation and execution of government. And a government based on the people's
participation cannot escape being based on the hereditary
rights of citizenship.

The monarchist ideal is different. Coming out of the Medieval
period there was an understanding within English practice
(and to a degree, in all of Europe) that the monarch must
consult with the people in governing the country. In Canada
we have a supreme right to be consulted as subjects of Her Majesty. Incidentally the monarch shares this right to have
consultation. In fact the monarch's rights are often a mirror of
the people's rights. Another example is the coronation oath
and the citizenship oath. The monarch promises in the
coronation oath to reign in accordance with Canada's laws
and customs while in the citizenship oath the people promise
much the same towards the monarch.

So why is this important? Because a government that can
reject the monarchy on the basis of its hereditary nature can
reject a citizen's unqualified right to vote on the same
grounds. We use hereditary selection when we want to
prevent an office, group, or position from becoming
monopolized by interest groups. The citizenship can never be
cut down to only people who believe the same things because
it is hereditary. The monarchy cannot become a prize for a
specific partisan viewpoint to capture for the same reason.

The Will Of The People

Some knowledgeable republicans object to monarchy based
on its association with divine right. While divine right did
play a part in the monarchy's history, it was neither a primary
justification for monarchical rule or even an uncontested one.

It is also not a current justification. Monarchs in Britain or in
Canada have never reigned by divine right. This is because in
1688 the Glorious Revolution occurred. It fundamentally and
definitively changed the monarchy from being based on
divine right to being based on the consent of Parliament.
While certain phrases such as 'by the grace of god' have been
kept they hide the fact that the monarch reigns by the consent
of Parliament, not the authority of God.

While the Rob Fords of the world can cling to power through
appeals to their democratic selection the monarchy is in a far
more precarious position. A monarch who tried to abuse power would simply be gone. Without democratic legitimacy
the monarch is counterfactually more accountable to the
people.

A related difficulty is when two democratically-elected offices
come into conflict. With both able to claim to represent the
people the argument can become messy and often boils down
to who can better use the powers of the state. The monarch
has no such recourse and must acquiesce to the democratic
office.

Republicans should not be allowed to get away with using
appeals to democracy to shut down debate. Monarchists can,
and should, make the argument that, far from being an undemocratic institution, the monarchy is Canada's most unappreciated democratic institution.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

A Misguided Legal Challenge, A Stubborn Prime Minister, And The Governor General Stuck In The Middle

8/1/2015

Governor General David Johnston

If you've been paying attention
to national news at all over the
last few years you'd know the
Canadian Senate is currently
stuck in a never-ending scandal
regarding expenses. The scandal
has produced a number of
possible remedies. Prime
Minister Stephen Harper upped
the ante last week by saying he
would not appoint anymore
senators in an effort to try and
bring the provinces to the table
(their support being needed if
the Upper Chamber is to be
changed in any meaningful way).
Given how much the Senate Scandal has burned the Prime
Minister I can't imagine he is in any hurry to appoint anyone
else to that body. However, this strategy is already being
challenged in court by Aniz Alani, a BC lawyer. He is
seeking to get the courts to rule on whether the Prime
Minister is constitutionally required to name senators or not.

So what does the constitution say on the matter? Section 24
states that "The Governor General shall from Time to Time,
in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of
Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and,
subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so
summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and
a Senator." Note that the constitution refers only to the
Governor General, not the Prime Minister. This is a vital fact
being lost in the whole story. Mr. Alani's court challenge
focuses on whether the Prime Minister has to render advice to
the Governor General. However, this advice is a convention,
not a law or legal precedent. And as any student of Canadian
law will tell you the courts don't rule on conventions. So it
would appear that the main thrust of the court challenge will
fail. The courts may weigh in on another issue though. The
courts may well state that the Governor General must make
appointments to the Senate. This would be in line with what
the constitution actually says. The courts have already stated
that the Senate cannot be allowed to simply whither away
through non-appointment. Another ruling would cement this
principle.

So where would this leave us? If the Prime
Minister still refuses to advise the Governor
General we may witness the rarest of political
birds: the death of a convention. Governor
General David Johnston would be the one in the
position of having to create a new rule for Senate
appointments. Normally, when the Governor
General has to act outside of established convention it either
provokes, or is caused by, a constitutional crisis. In this case
the sheer unpopularity of the Senate and the slow pace of
Senate appointments gives His Excellency some breathing
room to find a solution. Here is how it would possibly go:

The Governor General tries to convince the Prime
Minister to reconsider and give him names. He might
even mention that by long tradition he has a Right to be
Consulted. His Excellency could warn the Prime Minister that
his actions were set to trigger a constitutional crisis. And His
Excellency could encourage the Prime Minister to appoint
new senators (hopefully men & women of higher moral fibre).
In short, the Governor General would make use of Bagehot's
Three Rights of the Crown.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper still refused to
appoint senators the Governor General may decide to
wait him out. Perhaps the next Prime Minister would be
willing to advise the Crown on this matter. This strategy has
two flaws though. 1. The party most likely to take over from
the governing Conservatives doesn't want to appoint senators
either (for that matter they don't want the Senate to exist). 2.
The Governor General can't delay on this matter forever. They
may have to do something before a more cooperative Head of
Government appears.

With all options for maintaining the current convention
exhausted the Governor General (and it may not even be
David Johnston at this point) would have to act on their own.
They could act on their own accord in making appointments
but this is unlikely. A non-elected official appointed members
of an unelected chamber no one likes would cause too much
damage to the vice-regal office. It may even damage the
monarchy. Any occupant of the Governor General's office who
respects said office would shy away from this option. And this
is assuming the newly-appointed senators were high quality.
If they were caught misusing public funds the damage would
be magnified. There is no political 'victory' with senate
appointments. The Governor General would need a different
strategy.

The Governor General could request Parliament render
advice on senate appointments. However, with two of
Canada's main parties opposing senate appointments this
may not work. If not the last foreseeable resort would be to
ask the provincial premiers for advice. There is one last option
that might be open to the Governor General but I will leave
that to another article.

His Excellency's job may well be about to become quite a bit
more interesting. All because of an upstart lawyer, a stubborn
prime minister, and a scandal-plagued senate.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Prince's Charities Canada Hiring Intern

Republicans & Democracy

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

A Misguided Legal Challenge, A Stubborn Prime Minister, And The Governor General Stuck In The Middle

About

Archives

Categories

Prince's Charities Canada Hiring Intern

Republicans & Democracy

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, orshould be. But appeals to democracy areusually designed to shut debate down,not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

A Misguided Legal Challenge, A Stubborn Prime Minister, And The Governor General Stuck In The Middle

About

Archives

Categories

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells