Peak: Canada doesn’t need the Queen

My first article of the new school year is out and addresses comments that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard made during her latest campaign about dropping the monarchy there.

Canada doesn’t need the Queen
By Ian Bushfield

If you’re anything like me, you spent the latter half of your summer engrossed in news about last week’s historic Australian election, finally decided a full fortnight after their election day. It’s a vote that could have implications for their relationship to the British monarchy, and could be instructive for future Canadian policy.

For those not in the loop, Australia’s ruling Labour Party underwent a bloodless coup d’état a few months back when unpopular Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was replaced by up-and-comer Julia Gillard. She became the first female prime minister of Australia, as well as an atheist who lives with her partner out of wedlock. But like our own Kim Campbell, Gillard seemed destined to lose power as quickly as she gained it as her fortunes turned sour in this election.

But Gillard managed to sneak by with a tie in final seat counts with her opposition, and after some deals she managed to get enough independents and the lone Green Party member to support Labour and establish a coalition government.

I could make lots of comparisons here between our country and Australia, from their natural acceptance of coalitions, to their more proportional electoral system for their senate, or the fact that an atheist was elected prime minister and no one really got upset. But instead, I want to discuss one short quote that Gillard made during her campaign that was almost ignored.

She stated that Australia should seek to become a republic once the monarch changes.

Australia, like Canada, is a constitutional monarchy whose head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, the queen of England and the entire Commonwealth. Meanwhile, France and the USA are republics, which means that the people of either country directly or indirectly elect their heads of state.

In 1999, Australia actually held a referendum to determine whether they should drop the monarchy and instead install a president who would be nominated by a two-thirds majority of parliament. The referendum failed, in part because the alternative presented was a somewhat obscure option that didn’t necessarily have the support of all republicans in the country.

Monarchists defend the status quo using one of two main arguments: tradition, and the political advantages of an unelected head of state.

Tradition arguments can be rejected out of hand, as tradition is what brings us racism, sexism, xenophobia, and most other prejudiced systems. Just because something is what has always been done does not make it the right or moral thing to do. Monarchs are a throwback to theocratic days where people could be hung for the victimless crime of blasphemy with nothing more than a show trial. A monarch is the crown of a caste system where one cannot work their way out of despondency. The divine right of kings (and queens) is an affront to our modern free and secular society.

An unelected head of state is also argued to provide stability and rationality to the democratic process by acting as sober oversight to the whims of the public and politicians. Further, it is argued that by removing the monarchy, we risk consolidating even more power in our already bloated prime minister’s office.

However, as demonstrated by recent decisions of our governor general, the prime minister has little difficulty pushing his agenda through. Parliament has been prorogued twice to end debate that threatened the government. An independent and accountable head of state, separate from the PMO and cabinet, could act as a new focus of Canadian pride, and help to rebuild our crumbling democracy.

There’s many ways that we could establish a Canadian republic, and it is time we start the conversation about Canada after the queen.

FacebookTwitter

8 thoughts on “Peak: Canada doesn’t need the Queen”

  1. True, Julia Guillard mentioned her preference for a republic “when we see the monarch change”. However, her Labor Party lost 2.6% and nearly was sent back to the opposition benches. On the other hand, Monarchist Tony Abbott’s coalition gained 2.6% and 10 seats and nearly won the prime ministership. That does not indicate that the Australians rewarded a republican statement.

    In fact a survey taken two weeks before the recent general election and released on 29th August showed that 48 per cent of Australians said there should be no change in the country’s links with the monarchy. Australian support for the country becoming a republic is at its lowest level since 1994.

  2. Why hate the Queen? I don’t think there is sexism in the traditional monarchy. Just look, we a Queen and not a King as head of state. This is not the Catholic Church which will never ordain a female priest.

  3. I guess I am a wishy-washy monarchist. Things could be worse than they are now.

    Of course if a republic was the only way to prevent Charles from becoming King, that would be tempting. How can someone with presumably the best education money and privilege can buy and on top of that his own set of personal advisers, be such a sucker for new age woo?

  4. It’s time to rid ourselves of the monarchy. It’s time is done and Canada should become a republic. The queen and Charles are from another era and it is time we voted for a president of some sort.

  5. Personally, I wouldn’t know what to say to a person from another country abouthaving a queen as head of state. No advantages come to mind.

    Having the monarchy means being attached to the embarrassing Commonwealth Games. A third rate sporting event with Asian and African countries that still feel attached to a dead empire. And countries that are not democratic and have little to offer in terms of women’s rights. Go figure.

  6. But isn’t the olympics also has asian and african countries participating? Don’t tell me that this “not needing the queen” is a facade for racism? 🙁 It’s 2010, there is no room for that in the world now.

    1. The Olympics and the Commonwealth games are completely different competitions. If anything, the monarchy is more a symbol of our racist past (and somewhat present). Here’s a quick test: name the last black queen or king? Exactly.

  7. the Olympics and the Commonwealth games are completely different competitions. If anything, the monarchy is more a symbol of our racist past (and somewhat present). Hereâ??s a quick test: name the last black queen or king? Exactly.

Comments are closed.