Monarchists’ Assumptions

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.

The Queen as Symbol

I was recently reading some arguments for the crown. As a Canadian republican, I believe that Canadian values would best be reflected in making Canada a democratic republic, rather than what it is, a democratic monarchy. Reading over the document I noticed a very interesting thing.

Monarchists generally believe that the Queen has several important roles in our country. One of them is an embodiment of the country itself. And they believe that this is better then many of the alternatives. Consider the US Pledge of Allegiance. You pledge “to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.” The monarchist critic of this position is, I think, dead on:

[Thus] for Canada, the Constitutional Monarchy is of particular import… Its focus of loyalty and allegiance to a respected monarch rather than to a politician, an ideology or a symbol underlies the notably tolerant, mature society[.]

The Queen, they argue, makes more sense as the recipient of an oath. Why swear to someone who has been recently elected and will eventually step down or loose a future election, why swear to a set way of thinking or a particular vision, or to some symbol or inanimate thing like a flag. Swearing to a person that is the embodiment of Canada and all Canadians makes more sense.

They say that the monarchy is better than a symbol, such as a flag. And I could agree with this to a point: it does make more sense to swear to all Canadians and Canada. However, while continuing to read through the document, I noticed something that seems to go against this very idea. And it really does come back to the idea of the Queen being just the embodiment of Canada:

The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State.

And,

Oaths taken… are all oaths to The Queen.

By making this promise to the Sovereign rather than a politician… [they] show their ultimate loyalty is not to the elected figures… but to all Canadians and to the laws which make up the fabric of any civilized society.

I have to say, I really appreciate the sentiment. That is exactly what should be happening. New citizens and public officials should be swearing to all Canadians. I think that this is exactly what makes up a tolerant, mature, and civilized society.

But do you see what they just did? They are using the Queen (or even, the crown) as a symbol of Canada and all Canadians. In fact, I have many times seen monarchists say that the Queen is Canada. The Queen is a symbol, or an embodiment of Canada. I understand why they think the way they do. I don’t want people swearing to a flag or any symbol any more than a monarchist. I want people to swear to the people of Canada. Just like the monarchists. The difference is that I don’t believe that Queen Elizabeth is Canada, or is all Canadians.

By making a promise to all Canadians and to Canada rather than to a monarch, they show their loyalty is not to one born to a particular family, but to all Canadians and to the laws of Canada. It is not the same things as swearing to a particular monarch who can have a very different idea of what they want for Canada than Canadians do.

As far as being an argument to keep the crown, this falls flat. If swearing to the Canadian monarch is the same as swearing to all Canadians, why not simply affirm your intent to all Canadians and to Canada, rather than the Queen. The Queen is not needed to accomplish they very same thing. This is not a good argument to keep a monarchy.

We need no symbol. Canada (which is the geography and laws of our society) and Canadians (the people who live there in common cause) actually do exist, and those four words “all Canadians and Canada” literally embodies exactly what we are talking about. It’s not a convincing reason to remove the monarchy. At best, it makes the entire thing a non-issue.

Although, I’d certainly prefer public officials and new citizens to swear to all Canadians. That is the mature country I want to live in. A country where we swear to each other, not a symbol. A monarch is at best just another symbol. I want a country where we affirm to each other.

Measuring stable governments

How do we measure stable governments?

As the Star has long argued, the current system, which awards each riding to the candidate who wins the most votes, delivers strong, stable government that works.

(People’s verdict on voting reform)

Does Ontario’s First Past The Post system ensure strong, stable government? That likely depends on how you define “government”. The Star is clearly talking about the time between elections. However, members of Fair Vote Canada define it as over time. Yes, the last three governments, the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party, all had “strong” and “stable” governments. The the Ontario government between the NDP and PC government was an extreme shift in priorities and funding. Again for the PC and Liberal change.

Our all or nothing system allows massively unstable changes in the government from one election to another. Mean while, actual public opinion changes less often than the election outcomes tend to make it look. Some form of proportional representation would actually make the government more stable over time.

Of course, what anti-MMP people mean is that elections happen more often. For example, in Germany which uses a form of Mixed Member Proportional, they have had the exact same number of election that we have had. So, then, does that mean our system is as unstable as MMP?

Barrie is 60% Loser

The mighty Citizen of Barrie got their wish: They are losers.

The 2007 Ontario Provincial Elections are over and away, and looking over the preliminary election results I noticed something interesting. About 60% of the votes in this election were wasted. (57.8%, to be exact.) That is, all the votes for the Progressive Conservative Party, the NDP, the Green Party, the Family Coalition Party, the Libertarian Party, and the two independents.

I also noticed that about 60% of Barrie voters want to keep the current voting system that wastes your vote. (Exactly 61.6%.) So over all, I guess the citizen of Barrie got what they wanted (or deserve). One wonders if it’s the same 60% that had their vote wasted that voted for the wasting-my-vote system of electing our government.

(In this election, anyone in Barrie who didn’t vote Liberal had their vote wasted. In the last 3 elections straight, anyone who didn’t vote Conservative had their vote wasted.)

15% of Ontario backs the Liberals

The Liberal Party of Ontario had 15% of the people living in Ontario vote for them on October 10, 2007.

“But wait!” you say, “that’s not what I heard!”

You’re correct. Let me explain. The Liberal Party of Ontario has 71 seats out of 109. This gives them 65% of the votes in the Legislature. With a majority number of seats, they get to be the government, and end up with 100% of the power. But there’s more to the story.

The people of Ontario have spoken tonight with clarity and with purpose. They have chosen the Ontario Liberal Party to govern for four more years.

(Dalton McGuinty’s re-election speech)

‘The people of Ontario have spoken’? I think not. True, McGuinty and his party have unquestioned power in the Legislature, but they only got 42% of the vote. Yes, 42% of voters voting for you gives you 65% of the votes in the legislature, because we use an old, out dated voting system that distorts results. I call it a false majority government.

“But Shawn! 42% is much higher than the 15% you said earlier!”

I guess so. But that’s 42% of the people who voted. But only 52.8% of people eligible to vote did so. So, of all eligible voters, really only 22.2% of people in Ontario who are eligible to vote thought enough of the Ontario Liberals to get out and vote for them. But if you look at all the people who live in Ontario, it’s only 15%! That’s only 3 of every 20 people you see. And Dalton McGuinty is going on like he has a large mandate from the people. In truth, these days very few governments have clear mandates from the people, because in Canada almost no party ever gets over 50% of the vote. And much less so when you look at all eligible voters. And it’s very few people over all who have declared their interest to be ruled over by what ever party happens to govern this election.

“Come, now, Shawn. If you include every person in Ontario, you are including immigrants who can’t vote, and children less than a year old!”

Yes, and depending on what ‘eligible’ means, I might even be including educated, white, well off, middle aged men who never registered to vote. Sensationalist? Stretching the truth? Yes. But so is McGuinty’s speech. And so are all the other news articles that claim in their head lines that the Liberals won a massive victory. So it’s true, in the way that matters the Liberals won. But in the way that Democracy matters, the voice of the people is not being heard.

Update: I found comment in a letter to the editor about MMP:

Oct 12, 2007 04:30 AM

Mr. Nice makes history; Wary

voters opt to keep status quo

Oct. 11

The Toronto Star proclaims on its front page: “Ontarians have renewed their faith in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals,” who received 42.2 per cent of the popular vote in the provincial election.

Inside, it states that the MMP proposal, with 36.8 per cent support, “suffered a crushing defeat.”

That a difference of 5.4 percentage points can be viewed so diametrically makes it clear that the message inherent in MMP – that a party’s success should depend on its popular support – failed to make it into the minds of voters.

Patrick Heenan, Mississauga

Pope to declare medical policy in Midland, Ontario

Before I say anything, I want to point out that this news item is being discussed by the hospital boards and they will be consulting the community, and the final vote has not happened–yet.

There are two hospitals in Midland not 5 minutes apart from each other, which have decided to join in to one large hospital and take advantage of the synergy of the union. The official proposal, however, surprised everyone when it appeared saying the new hospital would be a Catholic hospital.

This is only a problem because the policy of Catholic hospitals are dictated by doctrine. The upshot is that a foreign national leader, and a religion leader, in this case Pope Benedict XVI in both instances, can determine which medical procedures Canadian citizens in Midland, Ontario can get. In the lime light is the often cited abortion issue. However, there is more related to reproductive health:

If Huronia is stripped of its non-denominational title, services that conflict with the religion will also be cut, including abortions, counselling for AIDS patients, birth-control options, vasectomies and tubal ligations. All are currently offered at Huronia.

I bolded one part in particular: counselling for AIDS patients. On top of all the reproductive health issues, AIDS patients will be left out in the cold. Your tax dollars at work.

I’m not against give tax money to religious institutions to have services provided. As a secularist, I believe that religion should be irrelevant to such decisions by the government. Only one thing matters: is the organization in question best suited to providing the service in question. In terms Catholic Hospitals, the answer is no.

I was surprised that we had Catholic hospitals. Do they get government funding? Money from other sources? Both?

Four members of the Huronia board have resigned, all of its physicians have threatened to leave, and more than 1,000 people in this community of 16,000 have taken out annual $5 corporate memberships for the hospital board in order to vote against the proposed plan.

God bless Canada: we are secular to the bone. It doesn’t matter if you are religious or non-religious. Canada is a country that loves freedom of religion. Government should not be funding religious organizations simply because they are religious. And people that do not follow a religion should not be forced to live by it.

“It’s a moral stand. It’s a question of access,” local resident Diane Greenfield said. “You don’t earn rights historically over time and then take them away over night.”

Citizens for a Secular Huronia District Hospital are leading the charge:

Elizabeth O’Connor, founder of Citizens for a Secular HDH, said the community has a lot to protect. Its hospital is intricately tied into the community and to hand control over to a denominational group with no local ties is wrong, she said.

“Our first breaths happen there and our last happen there and, in between, we’re in and out. We go in to visit friends. We want to keep that service secular and available and the range of services to be there. It’s also our hospital. Our tax dollars support it. Apart from that, there have been endless funding drives. There have been donations from individuals and groups. The sweat equity of our volunteers has been enormous.

Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada

I’ve read the book “Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada”, by William Johnson, and it left me thoroughly confused. The book itself is well written, and a very in depth look at Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister up to shortly after his election victory in 2006. (I read the updated edition.)

Even before we get introduced to Stephen Harper, it’s pretty clear where William Johnson sits. Just reading about one of Stephen Harper’s relatives you can here the awe and respect coming from the page. This utter adoration of Stephen Harper saturates the pages, and would leak if you ever squeezed the book. All that said, it’s still a good read.

But it’s confusing. The first three quarters of the book establish a character that you can’t help respect. Even if you disagree with the man and his policies, you have to respect his unwavering commitment to his principles. Time and again, through the Mulroney era, the founding of the Canadian Alliance, and as he takes control of the Canadian Alliance you see him time and against decided on policies and sticking with them in a very, very honest way.

Then, the last quarter of the book whizzes by and it all falls apart. Stephen Harper compromises many his commitments articulated throughout the book to hammer through a merger with the Progressive Conservative Party, and after his election victory again violates the government principles he’s always championed in order to get things done.

In his formative years up to the election campaign he was huge on transparency in government. Yet now we see he rules with an iron fist today in a very secretive manner, informing his caucus as what their position is rather than discussing it. Worse, the indicators that the author reported on after the election do nothing to disillusion him of his respect for Harper, and I think he may still be a die hard supporter of Harper.

The last quarter of the book essentially dismantled every compelling reason to respect Stephen Harper that laid out in the first three quarters, and the author seemed not to notice, and ended on a high note. As I said, it left me thoroughly confused.

Section Two

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• freedom of conscience and religion;
• freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
• freedom of peaceful assembly; and
• freedom of association.

(Canadian Chart of Rights and Freedoms)

Living in Canada is like living next to a loud mouthed neighbour. Many Canadians have a better understanding of American history than Canadian history. This is probably because American patriotism and nationalism oozes out of their media, and we Canadians to to see a lot of it.

As a result, I had no idea what what section two of our Charter said. I know that the 1 Amendment of the US Constitution is about freedom of religion. But I had no idea that Canada allowed the freedom of conscience. I just happened to look this up because of a number of articles and letters I read with regard to the lobby group Secular Ontario. Secular Ontario is currently writing city councils asking them to stop saying the Lord Prayer before council meetings so that non-Christians, who make up 1 out of every 5 Canadians, don’t feel marginalized or as though their perspective is not been addressed at city council.

I read a letter that said that in Canada you are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. This is patently untrue. As emphasized above, in Canada you are given freedom of conscience, which includes freedom from all religion, if that’s where you conscience leads you. I, personally, think that this is great. I think that everyone should be able to believe whatever they want, or not believe in anything they don’t want. Canada managed to side step that trap that has occurred in the US. However, even then, the US Supreme Court decided that atheism qualifies for the same freedoms as a religion, even though it’s not one.

Sources:

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• Wikipedia: Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

PR in the news

I was reading the Globe and Mail’s article announcing that the New Brunswick primer is going to work toward having a referendum on proportional representation. Good news, that. But then I found this in the article:

Other provinces are presently at various stages of electoral reform, with British Columbia and Prince Edward Island having voted to reject versions of proportional representation.

This is actually untrue. In BC most people voted for it, but just because a majority voted for the system, doesn’t mean to the BC government that they should get it. They needed to get over 60% (what some call a “super majority”) to pass. Also, in BC they will be having a second referendum in 2009.

The people not getting what they vote for. This seems to be a recurring theme.

What is Proportional Representation?

I’ve gone off on a few rants about why Proportional Representation will fix all our problems, do our laundry, and even clean our windows. I’m not sure if it will make you breakfast in bed, however. In fact, it probably won’t. I’ll go on the record to say that. But, what is it?

We use a system called “first past the post”, aka winner takes all. It works like this. Canada is divided up in to over 300 “ridings”. Each riding is over 100 000 people big. So large cities like Calgary have several ridings in them, whereas small communities have several villages and townships in one riding. If your city has around 100 000 people in it, it’s likely it’s own riding, defined by the city limits.

In each riding you have at least 4 candidates (5 in most of Quebec): The Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Green party (as well as the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec), and sometimes you may have an independent running (someone without any party affiliation). Lets make up an imaginary city called Votica. During a general election the citizens of Votica go down to the polls and vote. (Well, only about 60-70% of eligible voters.) Here’s the important part: Which ever candidate gets the most votes wins, and it doesn’t matter how many votes they get.

For example

Let’s say there is a party called the Omnia Vincit Party, or the OVP for short. They would win in this riding if they got a clear majority, like this:

OVP: 60%
Liberal: 12%
Conservative: 11%
NDP: 19%
Green: 8%

So the OVP wins the riding, and gets that vote. And the 40% of people who voted someone else get no say. Some could argue that the majority should rule, so this is okay. But this is not the only way elections come out. In my riding less than 50 percent of the people voted for the candidate that one. It was more like this:

OVP: 45%
Conservative: 40%
Liberal: 4%
NDP: 5%
Green: 6%

So, most of my city, or, in this case, the mythical city of Votica, did not vote for the candidate that won. Most do not want what this candidates stood for, but this candidates gets sent to Ottawa to speak for that city. This is something that is actually quote common. One last example:

OVP: 30%
NDP: 25%
Conservative: 20%
Liberal: 15%
Green: 10%

In this case, too, the OVP get all the say from that riding. A full vote in the Canadian Parliament. But only 30% of the community backed that candidate. 70% of the votes were wasted.

In fact, votes were wasted in each example. In the first example, 40% of the citizens lack actual representation. In the second example, 55% of the vote is wasted. And 70% is wasted in the last example. This happens across Canada. It also happens in the other 2 countries that don’t use proportional representation in their democracies. Yes, you read that right. Canada, the US, and the UK are the only 3 democracies in the world using this asinine system that is centuries old.

Everyone else has moved it. It’s time we joined them.

So, what is it?

Proportional representation means just that: every vote counts because you look at the over all percentage, and assign seats based on that. You are not left with parties getting more power than they should have. The Liberals ruled Canada during the 1990s with most of the power of Parliament. But they did have the confidence of most Canadians. In fact, typicaly only 40% of voters voted for the Liberals, but the liberals won a clear majority of the ridings. This is why I want another system. A better system. There are several ways to fix this.

• You can take votes for parties, and assign the seats (or voting power) in the Parliament by percentage. This would be a radically different system than we have now. This means that if the Green Party got 5 percent of the vote, they will be assigned 5 percent of the seats in the Parliament. The people who sit in those seats would be selected by the party, typically before the election, and the list would be published ahead of time.
• Or, you could vote the same way we do now, but add seats to fix the discrepancy. Consider the NDP. In the 2004 election the NDP got 15.7% of the vote, but only got 6.2% of the seats in Parliament. So we “add” seats to the NDP to give them the “proper” number of seats. This way, if you voted for the NDP, but didn’t elect your local candidate, your vote still gets counted, and the party can use that vote to put an unelected local candidates in Parliament to speak for those votes that would be wasted in our current system.
• Last is the mixed system. In this one you cast two votes. One for a local candidate, and one for a party. This way, you can vote for whatever party you think has the best stance on the issues, but also elect a local representative to speak for your local concerns.If you want, they can both be from the same party. So you could vote twice for the party you like. Or, you can vote for your party, but if the local candidate is not so hot, you can vote for someone else all together. Lastly, you can vote for the party you like, and against the candidate you don’t like. Using this system you have a bigger mix of options that you can employ. Parliament will be divided in half. The first half will be local candidates elected the old fashion way, and the second half will be seats filled by the party based on their votes in the popular election.

Different systems, but the out come is the same: less votes wasted. You never waste your entire vote.

Sources

• Fair Vote Canada – A advocacy organization for proportional representation – lots of great facts.
• Canadian Federal Election, 2004
• Canadian Federal Election, 2006