From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:08:11 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Peter Gogolek) writes:

>Do we see any of the qualities of the King of Thailand in our monarch?
>Does she have the respect, the moral authority, that he used?
>No, because she is not a Canadian.

>Another example of the value of a monarch was the time Juan Carlos
>of Spain thwarted an attempted military coup.

>Contrast this with the Queen's actions in Canada.  Some think we have
>a constitutional crisis in this country; where is the Queen?  She can't
>do anything, mostly because she isn't part of the country.  If we had
>a Canadian monarch, he (or she) would be active in the process and would
>have sufficient moral authority to curb the petty politicians.  The
>most we can hope for from the Queen of England is some pious platitudes
>put into her mouth by the current government, which is discredited and
>discreditable.

>A constitutional monarchy is a good form of government, if the monarch
>is a symbol (an embodiment) of the country, has the respect of the
>population (authority derives from this respect), and is above the
>political fray.  Our current monarch has none of these qualities.
>If Canada is to remain a constitutional monarchy, it must have a monarch
>worthy of the position.  This monarch cannot be a part-time, absentee
>monarch;  Canada is no longer a small colony, a minor gem in an
>imperial coronet.  Canada demands the full attention of its monarch;
>it is a difficult country and cannot have a decapitated government.
>Canada needs a head of state, if not a monarch then a president.

>Peter Gogolek
>Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Although I have defended the antidisestablishmentarian position,
I must acknowledge this argument: the monarchy is no longer very
important to Canadians.  I can respect Peter Gogolek, Sean Doran, and
others (eg. William Johnson) who argue out of patriotism for replacement
of the monarchy.

We could elect the Governor General without eliminating the monarchy
and the ritual of royal assent.  Should we do so?

Respect:  Perhaps election would lend fame and respect to the office;
but perhaps the attention would make it another bone of contention.
Authority: The role of the GG is so constrained that election could hardly
lend much authority.  Above the fray: The only way to stay above the
fray is to restrict oneself to "pious platitudes" and vague suggestions
as the Queen has done, and an elected head of state would also have to do.

E.g. Suppose Canada had an elected Governor General today, and it was
Clyde Wells (the "most respected" politician in the country according to
one poll).  Then think about Quebec for a moment, and repeat after me:
"Yikes."

Canada would not be improved if the Governor General were elected, and
would not be affected one little bit if the formality of royal assent
were dispensed with.  It would simply make our lives a little more dull.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada