Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
The idea that something is only undemocratic if there's no possible way to change it is absolutely not true. The only criteria for something to be non-democratic is if it originated (or at least is perpetuated) in a non-democratic way. Having the power to change it simply means that we could make a democratic decision regarding the issue at some point. You're confusing the potential with the actual.
|
It actually is true, that having potential to change something makes it democratic. Much of our laws are simply perpetuated over time rather than re-voted or reaffirmed at any opportunity. Think of all our bylaws, the Criminal Code, etc. Just because they are not actively re-voted on does not make their continuation undemocratic. That said, one could argue that the recent opportunities where the Constitution was actively in revision (repatriation, Meech Lake) and the system was "on the table" are democratic reaffirmations of the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
Quick question: Canada has had numerous governors general throughout our history. They've been appointed rather than hereditary, right? So how often do we have trouble with them being too political?
|
They are appointed, and I don't think we have had a problem with political interference - never said we have. Yet. (Though questionable behaviour and workplace management - sure.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
Why would they have to be directly elected? Why couldn't they simply be appointed in the same way as the current governor general? And if they were, why couldn't there be similar representation?
|
They could, and it could be similarly representative. The main danger of politicisation is if the head of state became elected. I mentioned it before in
another discussion, having the GG as "just the representative" means their role is limited: they're not elected like the PM so they have no public mandate; they're not the head of state themselves so they have no place stepping out of their ceremonial role. If a local head of state were elected, or appointed by the provinces, etc, s/he could claim their own mandate to act, and become political. That is not their role - we already have a head of government for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
Keep in mind that I haven't stated a preference for a specific alternative. My main comments so far are on the status quo as the option I don't want.
|
Sure - but you also haven't made a case beyond optics why a change is of any benefit to anyone. I see your point that the House of Windsor wasn't born in Canada and is "over there", and that bothers you (and many others, I get that). I could envision some non-partisan process, like an appointed head of state selected amongst Order of Canada recipients by Order of Canada recipients, that could deliver a made-in-Canada candidate. But that still makes them more vulnerable than someone of the House of Windsor to interfering, simply because they are "over here", and have their own personal histories, past politics, business connections, etc.
Another thought
mentioned earlier: the nomination committee that PM Harper set out (and PM Trudeau removed) seemed to work to get a good GG. Could that also work for a made-in-Canada head of state? It could. But again, it brings in the possibility that that individual will have/develop, or will be perceived to have/develop, some connection or bias for particular groups/interests in Canada. I mentioned earlier the example of Germany, which seems like a place where you could reasonably expect a working stable Western democracy to eliminate the potential of partisanship by the apolitical President -
but it happens there too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
How exactly does the US president being the head of state tie into the polarization? The biggest factors would be that the US has far fewer restrictions on money in politics and far more extremely wealthy individuals willing to spend to gain influence allowing big money to steer the discourse. The wealthy who want tax cuts and deregulation know they need to get wider spread support from the public so the GOP manufacturers an endless supply of cultural issues - fear of immigration, race, LGBT, etc. to get lower income people to vote against their interest. The biggest source of the polarization is media outlets like Fox which manufacturers opposition to anything wealthy owners don't like using the emotional tactics that resonate with people. Nothing to do with the structure of their head of state.
|
It ties in because it is obviously a vehicle to drive and sustain that polarisation. Had there been a separate, non-partisan, apolitical head of state, there would be another focus of national identity and sovereignty. Agree with all the factors you mention there, and insofar as they drive partisanship in the selection of the head of
government, I would accept that as democracy at work (not in a good way, but a downside one accepts in the system, though hoping for better). But firewalling that politicisation from the head of
state is a key part of establishing a national identity that is above the fray and unifying for everyone regardless of political stripe.
Again something I mentioned in
earlier conversation, there's this dynamic in the US where people really identify personally with "their" President, almost a devotion or even outright obedience. For better or worse - people who felt really uplifted with President Obama as a person of colour in the White House; others who joined an insurrection on the Capitol to "save" their President from a "stolen election". Ironically the office of the President seems more monarchical than our actual Monarch. The fact that people actually vote for and identify with the President I think is the basic issue. (President Trump did get 74 million people to support him after all.)
This article was quoted in discussion earlier, I think it explains the point better than I can:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/an-icon-not-an-idol-71f
You can make all sorts of solid arguments against a constitutional monarchy — but the point of monarchy is precisely that it is not the fruit of an argument. It is emphatically not an Enlightenment institution. It’s a primordial institution smuggled into a democratic system. It has nothing to do with merit and logic and everything to do with authority and mystery — two deeply human needs our modern world has trouble satisfying without danger.
The Crown satisfies those needs, which keeps other more malign alternatives at bay. No one has expressed this better than C.S. Lewis: "Where men are forbidden to honor a king, they honor millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead; even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."
The importance of this in a deeply polarized and ideological world, where fellow citizens have come to despise their opponents as enemies, is hard to measure. But it matters that divisive figures such as Boris Johnson or Margaret Thatcher were never required or expected to represent the entire nation. It matters that in times of profound acrimony, something unites.
|
So - agree with you that monarchies didn't start democratic; but our constitutional monarchy as it is now, is democratic, and has been reaffirmed at least twice in recent years (at least within my lifetime); and it is logically less vulnerable (though no guarantees, sure) to becoming politicised than any made-in-Canada option.
Prev
Linear Mode
