The dear old Queen of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and so many other countries: just what is she good for? Though, in my experience, few people care about her either way, there are those who see in the monarchy a powerful symbol. That is, a powerful symbol of injustice, of oppression, of an archaic system that goes against the very foundations of democracy and liberty. Or of stability, culture and history; an important part of who we are, of the Canadian identity.

I, however, am not concerned with symbols. But I do believe that the monarchy should either remain as it is, be reformed or be abolished. There are three options and one is better than the other two. So what is it that we should do?

First, we should look at our history, an history that is directly tied to that of our southern neighbour. What first divided what we now call Canada and the United States was our attitude towards the monarchy: they believed that the crimes of the King were far too great to endure, while we stood loyal to our monarch.

Thomas Paine, the influential English pamphleteer, explored this matter in Common Sense (1776):

[...] there is another and greater distinction, for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

This was a valid enquiry on his part, and he concluded:

In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

What strikes me in his overall argument is that it is passionate — and we must always be suspicious when passion is combined with politics. But he has combined reason and passion effectively and, within the context of his time, it is no surprise that his words rang true to a great many, that his words may have served as the match to set the hearts of colonists alight, inspired to take control of their destiny by instituting a new government to represent them. And at this point in time, talk of reform would have seemed like little more than idealism.

Whether or not it was right to shed the blood of neighbours and tear apart families over a far-away King, this is the subject of another enquiry. What matters here is the 21st century and it is clear that passionate arguments about freeing the people from some warmongering, greedy monarch have little to do with our modern situation. Whether the monarchy stays or remains, the life of myself and my fellow citizens will remain the same, for the Queen has no power over any of us.

She does have representatives, such as the Governor General on the federal level and the Lieutenant Generals on the provincial level. But their link to the Queen is little more than a formality and, though the Queen technically has certain powers over our political system, they are held by appointed individuals rather than a hereditary succession.

Do these offices serve Canada well? I suspect that the Lieutenant General is a waste of resources and little else. The Governor General’s position has some valid purpose by dividing the office of Prime Minister and that of the Head of State, but I am not convinced that it is right for the Prime Minister to (in practice, if not in theory) determine who will fill this position. The Governor General has certain powers within the context of our democracy, powers that some will argue are to the detriment of society, and that others will argue are a force of stability.

Ultimately, though this is something for us to investigate, it is of no relevance to whether or not she would abolish the monarchy as a whole. It is possible to eliminate all powers that some argue the monarchy holds, all without abolishing the monarchy.

At worst, the monarchy can be little more than an old-money family that we have chosen to symbolize our country. There are no powers that are inherently tied to it.

Is the monarch a positive or negative symbol? Is this constant image a source of stability or division? I believe that, in practice, in both cases, it is neither; the monarchy’s influence on our society is negligible. Some could argue otherwise, but their arguments would rest on the tiniest of details, the most minor of wrongs and would ultimately be about simple, meaningless speculation.

With the political value as well as the cultural value of the monarchy being mostly irrelevant to whether or not we should go through the pains of abolishing this age-old institution, the main point of contention thus becomes its economic cost to society.

I believe that the monarchy is best compared to other symbols which we invest in and which serve no clear purpose. The United States also has a symbol that is not so different in this respect: they have a White House, a building that was not designed solely with practicality in mind, but that is meant to serve as a symbol worthy of investment. It has well-manicured lawns and marble columns, massive chandeliers and a collection of art. Would the United States have been better off if the White House’s architecture and decoration was an example of frugality rather than excess? Perhaps. Is it unfair that politicians can live in such conditions, so distanced from the working environments of ordinary people? Perhaps. But this is a question for a country’s own people to answer and I see little distinction between investing in symbolic dinners that involve politicians, or those that involve monarchs.

I would be quite interested to know how much, exactly, the monarchy costs us. But whether or not it is appropriate for tax-payers to pay for the Queen’s horses is of no relevance to whether or not we should abolish the monarchy, but it is indeed of relevance to whether or not we should reform it.

I believe that, when looking at the issue as a whole, keeping in mind principles of similar nature and not falling prey to exaggerations that have no links to reality — such as comparisons between the monarch and a tyrant –, it does not really matter, in these modern times, whether or not we have a monarch. We could completely strip the monarch from all its powers, symbolic or otherwise; refuse to give them any more gifts or money; and, finally, let them be responsible for their own wealth, while allowing them to call themselves royalty and, perhaps, be invited to symbolic events.

The monarch does not necessarily hold power, nor does it necessarily cost us money: all that remains is a symbol.

This symbol, I believe, can not easily be argued to be good or bad, so I must treat it as neutral. And from here, I believe it as absurd to abolish the monarchy as to remove the White House’s marble columns and replace them with a material of lesser worth.

Thus, I conclude that the essence of our monarchy is irrelevant to our society and that rather than take to one extreme and speak of abolishing the whole affair, we should speak of reforming it, of reducing its cost to us and modifying the political offices that have a link to it.

Perhaps we will one day reach the point where it seems so easy to abolish the monarchy that we think: “Why not?. But at the moment, the most reasonable thing to do is to focus on reform rather than outright abolishment; it also happens to be the most realistic path to abolishment, if we ever choose to conclude the monarchy’s history in such a way.

-Dussault

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website