Posted by Ian McKechnie on September 13, 2009, 9:55 pm, in reply to "Re: The "Country" and The Flag"
38.117.68.162
Canadian republican literature insists it is not attempting to Americanise Canada, but what it does seem to want is an image akin to what the American image is right now: domination of their own territory, as if the Canadian Crown somehow represents an intrusion into our daily life.
From Citizens For A Canadian Republic:
1) "A Canadianized head of state should be the embodiment of Canadian sovereignty, diversity and pride - a position to which all Canadians could aspire."
(The Monarch and her Representatives already do an excellent job at this. CCR is telling us this, in essence: apparently the Royal Family and Governors General in the arctic don't represent Canadian sovereignty; apparently the appointment of French Canadians, Native Canadians, Black Canadians, and women doesn't represent Canadian diversity; apparently the Crown's representatives don't stir up pride...)
2) "Our head of state should be a true representative of the People of Canada. Presently, the Queen does not represent Canada when she travels abroad and we think that’s not in our best interest."
(The Queen is not purely of British linage, nor are her governors. Apparently, CCR tells us, Canada wasn't represented abroad by the Monarch in 1939, 1957, 1959, and 2007)
3) "The act of attaining full-fledged status as a democratic republic within the Commonwealth would be the completion of a process of independence that began over a century ago."
(Apparently we are not independent because our head of state resides in another realm. It begs the question, what if the Mayor of Toronto lived in Aurora?)
4) "Canada’s head of state should be a Canadian citizen and not be above our laws."
(Apparently the Queen is not a citizen, even though all authority in Canada is vested in her office. There's a difference between citizenship and place of rescidence, I think. The Sovereign hasn't been above the law since the 18th Century.)
5) "Canadians increasingly want to address the so-called "democratic deficit" that’s prevalent in Canada’s political system. In every good democracy, there’s a solid framework of checks and balances to ensure against the proliferation of abuses. One way to address that would be to have an elected head of state (either by the public, parliament or other such body), not an appointed Governor General who is simply the deputy of a distant monarch, chosen personally by the Prime Minister."
(The Monarch is only distant because Canadian governments want it that way. The Governor General is an instrument by which the royal prerogative can be exercised independently in Canada; CCR claims that partisanship and popularity are the best way of ensuring democracy. They fail to point out that the "Queen can do no wrong;" if the Governor General acts unconstitutionaly, he or she is removable by the Sovereign on Canadian advice. If they understood the institution, Canadians probably wouldn't have a problem with this).
CCR and republicans in general take "democracy" to mean a word synonymous with "election." It isn't. To quote an old verse, "O safe to the rock that is higher than I," monarchy represents, I feel, that "higher rock" in an overly-political society.
Responses: