I’ve had intermittent contact with monarchists over the years. A monarchist is one who supports the role of the monarch in a country, or in this case, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada. During those encounters, I’ve found that there are several assumptions that monarchists make. When I was recently reading the Monarchist’s League’s Arguments for the Crown I noticed they packaged up several of the assumptions that monarchists make that I don’t think or necessarily true.
I think that Queen Elizabeth II has been a very hands off monarch. She has essentially not interfered at all in Canadian politics. Although she is technically the ruler of Canada, in practice Canada functions pretty much as a republic right now. Although I don’t agree that “a government that governs least governs best”, I do agree that a monarch who rules least rules the best. A monarchist might say “you said it yourself, you already live in a republic. Leave the Queen for those of us who enjoy the monarchy.” But that’s the problem. That very sentence makes an assumption. (That future monarchs, a kind or queen, will be the same). And that is what this post is about: assumptions.
Assumption about future monarchs
The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State. The Monarchy protects and exemplifies the things Canadians agree about, and do not wish to see changed regardless of an election: community, tolerance, nationhood, the rule of law. And by presiding at events such as the Montreal Olympics and Canada 125, The Queen emphasizes the non-partisan, unifying nature of great national events.
I’m going to ignore the fact that I do not see how the monarchy has protected community, tolerance, nationhood, or the rule of law. These things are the values that Canadians agree about, according to the quote. But assuming that Queen Elizabeth II has done this or has remained neutral on this matter, the monarchists here assume that every monarch in the future would protect these things or remain neutral on them. This is a strange assumption to make. History says this is not always true. Just because we currently have a good monarch (as in, rules least) doesn’t mean that we should continue to give every future monarch the same level of control. Just because the current monarch hasn’t abused her power in a way that’s against Canadian values doesn’t mean we should give all of her heirs the same powers.
Some future King or Queen of Canada may decide to be very outspoken against multiculturalism, against community, against tolerance, or against the rule of law. There is no test to be a monarch. The monarchists assume that every future monarch will be just like the one we have now. Or that even the current monarch can’t change. This is a common assumption that monarchists have. An assumption that I don’t believe is justified to have. We can always hope it will be true, however.
Assumption about playing by the rules
However, the Crown’s role (“the Royal Prerogative”) remains part of our Constitution to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard – “a constitutional fire extinguisher” as columnist Michael Valpy has put it – should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down. For example, even a popular government cannot simply dispense with holding an election. Nor can a government spend public money without parliamentary approval.
Sometimes people don’t follow the law. Here, the monarchists are correctly pointing out that sometimes, in some countries, the elected government does things they shouldn’t. The term “checks and balances” applies here. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada is a check against Parliament, and makes sure the Parliament doesn’t pass laws that are illegal. The monarchists are saying that the Queen is another check and balance to make sure that things are running smoothly.
This actually has several several assumptions in it. The first is that the monarch of the day will not step out of line. There are rules, conventions, and now laws guarding what the monarch can and cannot do. The monarchists assume that every future monarch will abide by our wishes and the rule of law. I have seen it said that monarchs are ‘breed’ for the purpose. So we have nothing to fear, they say. I disagree. I think that anyone can be bad, yes, even a monarch. Why they believe a politician can break the law but anyone who ascends to the throne won’t, I don’t understand. The fact is the queen is just another person we need a check against.
Assumption about enforcing the rules
The second is the assumption that the monarch will care if a politician steps out of line. Monarchists claim that the monarch is non-partisan, neutral, and not affiliated with a particular political party. The thing is, the monarchist is human. The monarchist does have their own opinion. Of a politician steps out of line and the monarchist agrees with it or doesn’t see the issue they may not interfere at all.
Further, what can the monarch do if the government refuses to acknowledge the orders? What if some Prime Minister decides to dispense with elections, like the monarchist said in the above quote? Will the army follow the orders of the monarch and remove the Prime Minister from office? Or would the army listen to the Prime Minister and remove the monarch? What real powers does the monarch have that 30 million Canadians don’t?
Assumption that the symbol matters more than the law
The Premiers, including the separatist Rene Levesque, underlined the importance of the Crown in their 1978 statement, above, since the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance. It also guarantees that the rule of law will be followed in dealing with any of the many disputes that arise between Ottawa and the provinces.
These facts explain the strong support by the provinces for the institution of Monarchy, which reconciles regional authority with national unity.
Each province as well as the country all have the Queen as the head of state, as executed by her representative. This, the monarchists claim, allow the provinces to be not subservient to the federal government, but equal to it. This is exactly how Canada was set up. The provinces have full authority in the things that provinces as given power over, like education, and the federal government has full authority in the things that it has power over, like criminal law.
The monarchists believe that legitimate authority flows from the crown. And that since the authority of the crown flows equally to all provinces, that no one province or country has any power over the others. The assumption that monarchists make here is that there is no other way for this to happen. However, in a republican model the power flows from all Canadians. And from Canadians to the provinces and the country. Further, in my personal view, this is not power to govern or rule over the people or even other provinces, but the power to run the day to day tasks that the rest of us are too busy to do.
In reality, the crown being ahead of all the provinces as well as the federal government is merely a symbol. It’s also enforced by laws as discussed earlier. There is no reason to give such power to one person when the same thing can be accomplished without anyone having such power. The crown is merely superfluous in this case. The law stands on its own.
Shawn's Humanist Blog 