Blog Archives

Prince Charles Addresses COP21 Conference in Paris

11/30/2015

Photo Credit: The BBC

Prince Charles addressed the
COP21 Conference on climate
change today. In his speech His
Royal Highness urged the
gathered national leaders to
commit to fighting climate
change.

This is an issue with which the
Prince has a lot of experience.
The Prince has been sounding
alarm bells long before it was
fashionable to do so.

The Prince's Speech

Below is a partial transcript of the remarks made by the
Prince of Wales. A video of the opening minute of his speech
can be found here. Link

Your deliberations over the next two weeks will decide the fate,
not only of those alive today, but also of generations yet unborn.
So I can only urge you to think of your grandchildren, as I think
of mine, and those billions of people without a voice. Those for
whom hope is the rarest of sensations. Those for whom a secure
life is a distant prospect. Most of all, I urge you to consider the
needs of the youngest generation. Because none of us has the
right to assume that for our today they should give up their
tomorrow.

The Prince went on to say that "On an increasingly crowded
planet, humanity faces many threats - but none is greater
than climate change, it magnifies every hazard and tension
of our existence." Further, the Prince pointed out that climate
change will stress civil society to the breaking point:
"It threatens our ability to feed ourselves; to remain healthy and safe from extreme weather; to manage the natural resources that support our economies, and to avert the humanitarian disaster of mass migration and increasing conflict."

All of which is consistent with what the Prince has been saying for years. But sadly Prince Charles has had to play the
part of a political Cassandra, more often mocked for his
views than respected.

Shortly after the address Philippe Joubert, Chair of The
Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group, remarked that
while success in putting a price on carbon would be good,
doing so while also continuing to subsidize carbon sources
makes no sense.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Progressivism & Monarchy

11/28/2015

It is not a secret that, as a general rule, conservatives seem to
support monarchy more than progressives. While it is true
that conservative support for tradition and established
authority make support for monarchy quite natural what
aspect of monarchy makes it such an incomparable ideal for
progressives?

This question has played in the back of my mind for a while
now. I ponder it as my own examination of monarchy reveals
not two incompatible ideals as is commonly assumed but
ones that often gain a great deal from each other.

Before I continue with my main argument that monarchy
should be considered a progressive ideal it might be helpful to
define what I mean by both monarchy and progressivism.

'Monarchy' literally means 'rule by one'. It is the world's most
successful system of government having been adapted for use
from China to Peru and from the dawn of human history up to
present day. A system that has been so widely used has to be
flexible. And, indeed, monarchy has many variations. While I
could get into the myriad differences between Canada's
hereditary chiefs and imperial Russia's tsars I'd like to
move ahead somewhat quickly. Sufficed to say that while
many of the points I will make apply to other forms of
monarchy I will be focusing strictly on constitutional
monarchy where the monarch reigns but does not rule.
Constitutional monarchy is a system where the monarch lets
elected officials handle the day-to-day governance. The
monarch may have real reserve powers (as in Canada,
Denmark, Britain) or they my be limited to a strictly
ceremonial role (Sweden, Japan). Special mention should be
made of Monaco and Liechtenstein who have elected
assemblies but whose monarchs do participate in the
governing of the country. And while the Parliament need not
be democratic in a constitutional monarchy, remaining
constitutional monarchies are also mostly democratic states.

'Progressivism' is an interesting belief system due in no small
part to the contested definition of it. I cast a wide net in my
search for an adequate definition consulting in their turn
Wikipedia, The Progressive Bloggers, a couple friends
of mine that I would consider progressive, and others. From
these sources I was able to come up with two definitions of
progressivism; one formal and one informal. The formal
definition is that progressivism is:

The idea that advances in technology, science, and social
organization can produce improvements to the human
condition. Additionally, the belief that the above advances
have worth. A supporting belief is that history is linear, not
cyclical (ie. human progress never reaches a plateau or perfect
state but always seeks to move towards it).

My friends contributed much of what I call the informal
definition of progressivism:

The idea that society must continue to change, that the status
quo cannot be considered progressive. History itself has a
'story arc' leading to the further advancement of humanity.

Much of this article is meant to show that monarchy is a
system that uniquely supports human progress as defined by
the formal definition. Because the informal definition
explicitly excludes the status quo I will show that no other
system of government falls within it. ie that the definition
itself adds little value to our understanding of human
progress. But even then I will argue that monarchy can be
considered a progressive ideal.

Ok, with a workable definition of what monarchy and
Progressivism is we can continue. I'm going to make a couple
assertions that I hope will be uncontroversial:
1. An ideal is progressive when the basic ideas of
progressivism support its existence.
2. An individual is a progressive if they support progressive
ideals and undertake to advance progressive causes.
3. An institution is progressive when its existence supports
progressive results and is supported by progressive
individuals.

It is my argument that monarchy should be considered a
progressive institution/ideal. The primary purpose of making
this argument is to counter the assertion that republicanism is
somehow the more progressive option in all cases.

As I have written about a number of times before there is
some interesting academic research that has been done on
monarchy as a government system. You can go through the
links above to find the relevant studies but to summarize:

Monarchies handle large institutional reforms better
than republics.

Monarchies may liberalize quicker than republics.

Directly electing heads of state contribute to a 5-7% drop
in votes for legislative elections.

Electing heads of state does not appear to have any
effect on voter alienation or apathy.

Constitutional monarchies have a marked preference for
consulting the public in times of political dispute.

Monarchies seem to generate, or at least do not harm,
generalized trust between citizens.

There is no correlation between monarchy and income
inequality.

Indirectly-elected presidents are no less likely to be
partisan if their position possesses actual power.

Monarchies seem to better protect property rights.

The first point is especially important for progressives. The
ability to undertake institutional changes without negative
effects makes progress easier to achieve. If every change to
society results in noticeable difficulties there is a resulting
tendency towards the status quo. But overall, I bring these
studies up because progressives believe that scientific
knowledge should be taken into consideration when making
policy decisions. If improvements to social organization is a
value of progress it is equally true that those improvements
should have a basis in evidence.

Further, since the above studies show that monarchy has
specific advantages when it comes to promoting economic,
democratic, and social progress it can in fact be argued that
monarchy is a progressive ideal.

But what of the monarchs themselves and their families?
Well, the Queen's address to the UN from 2010 sheds some
light on what Her Majesty values. Specifically the part that
says "I have also witnessed great change, much of it for the better, particularly in science and technology, and in social attitudes. Remarkably, many of these sweeping advances have come about not because of governments, committee resolutions, or central directives - although all these have played a part - but instead because millions of people around the world have wanted them." The Queen has also shown a keen interest in using new technologies to better carry out her roles as monarch. Prince Charles likewise has used
his position as the Prince of Wales to actively promote
progressive causes. His advice to government ministers
has likewise been of a progressive nature. The Duchess of
Cornwall has taken up the cause of rape victims. Prince
William recently spoke out against bullying and
homophobia in schools. Collectively the Royal Family
supports about 3000 charities. All of which is only to point
out that our Royal Family is a rather progressive bunch.
Much of this can be traced back to Prince Albert who was
a major patron of science. "But", I hear you say, "what about
all those other monarchs?"

Well, in Morocco the king has agreed to subsidize the
kingdom's solar power generation in order to keep prices low.
This step potentially sets the kingdom up to be a green
energy superpower.

And who can forget King Juan Carlos I's restoration of
Spanish democracy? He isn't even the only monarch in the
modern times to move from absolute rule to democracy. The
monarchs of Bhutan have encouraged democracy in the
country since the 1950s which culminated in a full transition
to constitutional monarchy in 2008.

Indeed, monarchy seems to have a tendency to produce
leaders who are more progressive than their subjects. This
makes sense when you consider that a low levels of education
is connected to greater political conservatism. Monarchs are
trained from birth to rule and also tend to have a long
apprenticeship. The odds are stacked against them becoming
conservatives. You could argue the reason that you see fewer
progressive monarchs in the House of Saud is their habit of
avoiding hereditary succession. A couple of years ago VICE
ran an article where they interviewed Baptiste Roger-Lacan
who noted that "It's important to notice that nowadays
republican France is more conservative compared with some European monarchies, like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark." You could say much the same about Germany.

But returning to the Canadian Royal Family we can see there
is a large number of progressives. This leads to my third point
that an institution made up of progressives can be considered
progressive itself. Nor are the progressives of the Royal
Family the only progressives to support the monarchy.
With members promoting progressive causes and the
institution itself seeming to encourage progressive results I
argue the monarchy is a progressive institution.

This concludes my look at monarchy from the perspective of
the formal definition of progressivism. Next up, the informal
definition.

My first thoughts on the informal definition is just how
common it is among republicans. The number of times I've
heard monarchy referred to as an archaic system is
unbelievable. That it seems to excludes any form of
government makes me question its usefulness. Consider that
the oldest currently existing republic was established in 301
AD. If progressivism entails a constant forward advance this
republic would be excluded. Could we say that any aspect of
government is progressive? Human rights? Nope. The
concept is quite old. Democracy? Ditto.

Ultimately, tying progress to movement from the status quo
always becomes problematic. There is a way around this.
Consider human rights as an example. While the concept of
human rights continues as a solid ideal how we interpret
them change over time. By the same token while the basic
premise of monarchy has remained the same it has gone
through major changes. Whether we look at the monarchy's
movement from executive to moral leadership, legitimacy via
divine right to legitimacy via parliamentary support, rule by
custom to rule by statute, or a single imperial crown to a
multitude of national crowns it is hard to argue that the
monarchy has not changed (and continues to change). But in
doing so it has kept fundamental aspects of itself consistent
because they work. So in a sense you could argue that
monarchy meets the informal definition of progress. Going
from a monarchy to a republic isn't so much progress as it is
jumping from one path to another.

Now, while I think I have made a good effort at explaining
why I see monarchy as being completely compatible with
progressivism I don't expect progressives to agree. I say this
because there are few people who are only progressives. Most
also ascribe to liberalism, socialism, social democracy, or
republicanism. And these ideologies often have their own
criticisms of monarchy. But perhaps I can hope that they will
admit that their opposition to monarchy stems from
secondary beliefs rather than any intrinsic conflict between
monarchy and progressivism.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Prime Minister Trudeau Has His First Audience With The Queen

11/26/2015

Yesterday the Prime Minister had his first audience with Her
Majesty. During the public photo-op prior to Justin Trudeau's
private audience with the Queen the two exchanged pleasantries and remarked on their previous meeting when
Justin Trudeau was but a child. Afterwards the Queen and her
Prime Minister had a private discussion.

These private discussions are immensely important to our
system of government. A Prime Minister lives in a world
where allies can be just as dangerous as enemies. A world
where he is surrounded by either supportive or critical
partisans at all times. Former British Prime Minister James
Callaghan described the meetings as being akin to a trip to
the psychiatrist. The Queen takes her role as confidant
seriously and has never divulged the private matters
discussed with her ministers.

The Queen also serves as a non-partisan source of advice and
experience. The Queen has a wealth of knowledge about what
policies governments have tried, what obstacles they faced,
and possible solutions. Repeatedly, Prime Ministers have
marveled at the width and breadth of the Queen's knowledge
of her Canadian realm. They probably shouldn't be. Her
Majesty has always taken a keen interest in the triumphs and
tragedies of her subjects. She has toured every province to an
extent no federal politician is likely to do. She knows her
country well. The Prime Minister would be wise to request,
and heed, Her Majesty's advice.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Much Ado About Paintings

11/15/2015

Last week there was a bit of a stir when the Queen's portrait
was removed from the lobby of the Foreign Affairs building.
The portrait had hung there since 2011 when it replaced two
paintings by Quebec artist Alfred Pellan.

Photo: Adrian Wyld of The Canadian Press

The Monarchist League of Canada was not pleased. Outside
observers may see the reaction as a bit much. To understand
the reaction from the League requires knowing a bit of the
history between the League and the Liberal Party of Canada.

The League formed in 1970 in order
to counter what was seen as the
'creeping republicanism' of the
governing Liberal Party. The slow
removal of royal symbols, downplay
of royal history, and subtle disregard
for the Crown was a war of attrition.
Every negative action taken by the
government in regards to the Crown
had to be confronted or Canada's
monarchy would face slow decay.

However, over the last ten years the monarchy has been
returned to its rightful place at the center of Canadian culture
by the Conservative Party. During the period in between the
Liberals held a vote on adopting opposition to the monarchy
as a part of party policy. While the vote failed 67-33 the
vote left some monarchists concerned about what the Liberal
Party would do in power. The Trudeau Liberals have also
made some supportive statements in favour of the
monarchy. However, saying things outside of power and
doing things once in power are completely different.

With the return of the Liberal Party after the recent election
the League is certainly looking for signs whether the
monarchy is now valued by the Liberals or whether it will be a
return to the previous policy of republicanism by a thousand
cuts. While the League is strictly non-partisan there isn't
a lot of trust for the new Liberal government as of yet. An
action like this so shortly after the election was likely to be
interpreted as an attack. The portrait flap will probably come
to be seen as the first uneasy interaction between two groups
which have not had to work together for a while. I'm not
prepared to read too much into this action. One mistake a
trend doth not make. As for what ought to have been done
about the paintings...

The paintings in question

A compromise should have been found. The Conservatives are
somewhat to blame for the current situation. They set up a
situation that artificially pitted monarchism vs. Quebec
nationalism. The sensible solution, in 2011 as in 2015, would
be to have both the Queen's portrait and the paintings on the
(very large) wall. The paintings represent the diversity of
Canada. The portrait represents Canada's status as a
monarchy, a unifying force, and the person in whose name
the Foreign Affairs office acts. The wall is literally, and
figuratively big enough for both.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Canadian Oath of Office

11/9/2015

Photo Credit: Global News

Justin Trudeau was sworn in as Canada's 23rd Prime Minister
last Wednesday. The process of being sworn in as a Prime
Minister of Canada involves three separate oaths. The first
was the Oath of Allegiance:

I, __________, do swear (declare) that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,
Her Heirs and Successors.
So help me God.

The Oath of Allegiance is a requirement for assuming many
high offices in Canada as well as forming part of the Oath of
Citizenship sworn by those who wish to join the Canadian
family. The Oath of Allegiance is often taken along with other
specific oaths (as it is here). The second oath Justin Trudeau
took on Wednesday was the Oath of the Members of the
Privy Council:

I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall
be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in
all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully,
honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret
all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall
be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a
faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.
So help me God.

Notice that while both oaths require sworn loyalty to the
sovereign the context is different. The first is a promise to be a
loyal Canadian, to do no harm to her Majesty (or her heirs),
and to present yourself as a friend to Canada. The second oath
is a promise (while also upholding loyalty) to do one's duty for
Canada. To finish everything off Justin Trudeau also took the
Oath of Office:

I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare)
that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge,
execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as ...........
So help me God.

This is the only oath that does not require swearing some sort
of loyalty to the sovereign. This makes a bit more sense when
you consider that the office of Prime Minister is still merely primus inter pares, first among equals. You can't become
Prime Minister (or cabinet minister) without first being a
member of the Privy Council. It is this large group of Her
Majesty's advisers that Justin Trudeau became 'first among'.

There has been a tendency to concentrate power into the Office of the Prime Minister over the years. This slow-motion presidentialization of the office is one thing that the new
Prime Minister has promised to fix. It remains to be seen as
to whether he will follow through and become once again
first among Her Majesty's servants or continue to think of
themselves as over mighty presidential wannabes.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Prince Charles Addresses COP21 Conference in Paris

The Prince's Speech

Progressivism & Monarchy

Prime Minister Trudeau Has His First Audience With The Queen

Much Ado About Paintings

The Canadian Oath of Office

About

Archives

Categories