Rethinking monarchs and democracy

OTTAWA—The Queen is dead, long live the King! Transition in a democracy with a hereditary monarchy. Smooth and seamless in a chaotic world: the past gives rise to the future in ceremonial splendor. Yet, in the century-old words of the great British poet and author, Rudyard Kipling: while "the tumult and the shouting dies, the captains and the kings depart,” the issues, the problems and the mistakes of the past remain. For the United Kingdom and those of us in Canada, who are constitutionally connected to the marriage of monarchs and democracy, it is a time for reflection on the validity or the utility of that system. A system that, in some measure, began in France when “Le roi est mort, vive le roi!” rang out with the death of King Charles VI and the succession of his son, Charles VII in 1492. A quick history recap: 1492 marked the beginning of widespread European depredations, through conquest, of the world. The lingering effects of that plundering remain high among the complex problems of the past which continue to swirl around the edges of many countries, including the United Kingdom and Canada. For the United Kingdom, the issue is how united the kingdom is in the aftermath of the decision to leave the European Union. Especially when one considers the manner of that departure: a largely inconclusive vote, not reflecting nor understanding of the issues associated with the kingdom’s conquered and constituent elements—Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The decision to leave the most successful effort of European political and economic unity was based simply on majority rule. It was pursued relentlessly by a small group of determined English political misanthropes without consideration of the interests the kingdom’s minority constituents. They were determined to recreate an England that no longer existed in a world that no longer existed. In the words of Kipling, it was unvaliant “dust” built on “dust.” The government of the day's stupidity should have sparked direct involvement by the Queen. But that did not happen. Elizabeth was silent even though the unity of her kingdom was directly engaged. Her involvement would have exercised the Queen’s residual power to influence her government and people when they embarked on a road leading to self-destruction. Earlier examples of the monarch's interventions provided a measure of sanity in the 500 years of English insanity towards the Irish. Even there, the Queen's intervention was sparked by the earlier American intervention, bringing an end to the senseless violence that her government was incapable of achieving. Even more recently, the Queen’s intervention influenced her government's policy on climate change issues. Today, the issue was the Queen's unwillingness to intervene on Brexit before Jan. 31, 2020. The consequences are profound, not only in political and economic terms, but also in the continued existence of the United Kingdom. To a large extent, the possibility of the Irish Sea becoming an international border has more to do with flexibility in Brussels than with the abilities of King Charles’ ministers to solve problems of their own making. The same issue arises with Scotland. The Scots wanted to remain in the EU and voted accordingly. English politicians, bedazzled with their narrow electoral success, were blinded in seeing the dangers inherent for the unity of the kingdom itself. Now they are battling over an intended referendum, which a coterie of English politicians will oppose, as if it were the Battle of Culloden all over again. Canada, with its attachment to the system of a hereditary monarchy and democracy, faces similar problems. While there has been some success in overcoming the consequences of conquest, with respect to the people of Quebec, we have had no success in dealing with the consequences of the conquest of Indigenous people. The repatriation of the constitution created conditions that over time provided the basis under which the people of Quebec, through self determination, could create their own country. And the retention of a role for the English monarchy as our head of state did not overly interfere with the expected results. It has worked reasonably well in damping associated constitutional issues to the point they do not dominate our political system. However, the continuing issues tied to a system that oppressed Indigenous people in Canada will severely test the existing constitutional arrangements. Essentially, there are two issues. The first relates to how Indigenous people achieve a process where self determination dominates. The second issue is one of compensation for the more than 500 years of injury done by the incoming settler population. There are a variety of measures underway, but they are largely piecemeal, haphazard even. The domination of the majority in the political, economic, cultural, and social life of the country does not permit—or even contemplate—the possibility of a different system for Indigenous people. The existence of a distant head of state in a foreign country does not encourage the creation of such a system. The appointment of an Indigenous person as Canada’s intermediate head of state could well provide the opportunity for progress. It is a Canadian problem. It is not helped by a foreign head of state, no matter how benign, now preoccupied with the preservation of unity within his own United Kingdom and the limits of his office. Gar Pardy is a retired ambassador who comments on public policy issues from Ottawa. His books Afterwords from a Foreign Service Odyssey and China in a Changing World are available online. The Scary World of Nuclear Weapons will be published later this fall. The Hill Times

Rethinking monarchs and democracy

For the United Kingdom and those of us in Canada, who are constitutionally connected to the marriage of monarchs and democracy, it is a time for reflection on the validity or the utility of that system.

Private member’s bill to make MPs’ oath to King Charles III optional could prove ‘more trouble than it’s worth’ for government

We need to examine royalty’s ideological and political role: reader

As Charles III is crowned Canada’s King, Canadians take stock of their relationship with the monarchy

Private member’s bill to make MPs’ oath to King Charles III optional could prove ‘more trouble than it’s worth’ for government

Farmers facing head winds investing in new migrant worker housing

Predicting Poilievre’s foreign policy plans

Budget overlooks need for trade-enabling infrastructure

First Nations and the right to say yes

Modi expected to win India’s election

Bill 21 should be quickly repealed

King Charles III’s coronation a chance for Canada to break away from monarchy, says Bloc MP Fortin

Ukraine war’s first anniversary comes and goes with no end in sight

The monarch’s sceptre is not a magic wand, writes Kenora reader

King Charles has opportunity to renounce Discovery Doctrine, says national chief, MPs

Give Charles a chance

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Rethinking monarchs and democracy

For the United Kingdom and those of us in Canada, who are constitutionally connected to the marriage of monarchs and democracy, it is a time for reflection on the validity or the utility of that system.

Get The Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Newsletter