The death of the Queen has inspired a good deal of discussion about the monarchy and the status of the monarch’s representative in Canada, the governor general. There has been practically universal admiration expressed for the late Queen and the monarchists in Canada have taken the occasion for very energetic effusions about monarchism in general. Any country that has a political system that works is wise to keep its institutions and renovate them as appropriate. 

All constitutional monarchies that have survived to this point — such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Spain, the Scandinavian and Dutch and Belgian monarchies, and probably even Thailand — would probably only be subject to radical change in the event of a thoroughly inept and unpopular sovereign. Authoritarian monarchies like Saudi Arabia, and even less offensive ones such as Jordan and Morocco, could probably not be described as stable but are preferable to any visible alternatives.

A non-residential monarchy such as Canada is an anachronism and anachronisms do not continue indefinitely. Queen Elizabeth II received, as she deserved, much praise for her 22 visits to Canada, but she was the head of state of what became a G7 country during her reign and approximately 22 weeks in over 70 years is not a very constant presence by the head of state of a sophisticated country that now has nearly 40 million citizens. 

No one, and me least of all, would reproach her for inattention to this country, and I know from conversations with her that she was extremely well-informed and had more vivid recollections of every section of the country than all but a small percentage of Canadian citizens would possess. But it is still an awkward concept, and the position of governor general, a colonial title and an office that is not particularly enhanced by being simply an appointment of the prime minister, would benefit from a creative revisitation.

Polls indicate that only about a quarter of the population feels any attachment to the present monarchy, though once again and very deservedly, there was very widespread respect for Elizabeth as an individual. I think that to rescue the monarchical and Commonwealth connections from the inexorable ravages of time and geographic remoteness and an increasing sense of being anomalous, it behooves us to redefine the relationship of the principal Commonwealth countries, and adapt the institutions that link them to make them more contemporary and effective. 

As the general trend in the world, at least among the more developed countries, is to forge larger commercial and, up to a point, political associations, there is a great opportunity for the more advanced Commonwealth countries — the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore — to form a bloc that would not concede any more supranational authority to its central institutions than each participating country wished, but would aspire to be a coherent force in the world, where it would be surpassed in economic and demographic size only by the United States, China, and the European Union. 

The Commonwealth itself would be a two-tier organization and the “senior Commonwealth” would focus the majority of its foreign development efforts on some of the less economically advanced Commonwealth countries. India would be in a special category of attention and affiliation because of its immense size and rapid economic growth rate. South Africa would also enjoy a special status because of its preeminence among sub-Saharan African countries.

The monarch would continue in his role as head of state of the U.K. and the Commonwealth, but serve as the co-head of state of Canada (and if they approved of this arrangement, Australia and New Zealand, too). In Canada, the other co-head of state would be the holder of a combined office of president and governor general. I believe that other than where a different arrangement has historically evolved and works satisfactorily, it is preferable that the head of state not be a mainly ceremonious office. The presidents of Germany and Italy, however distinguished the individuals may be, are stand-ins for the former monarchs of those countries. 

If the ostensible head of state does not have the legitimacy and pageantry and history of a royal family and tradition, what you are left with is a rather emasculated office. In general, unless it is a monarchy whose powers have gradually devolved, as in the U.K. and the other European monarchies, I think the head of state should be the most powerful political figure in the country, as in France and the United States. Charles de Gaulle resolved the longstanding struggle between monarchists and republicans in France by creating a monarchy and calling it the Fifth Republic: a presidency with a renewable seven-year term and extensive powers, but with a prime minister supported by a majority in the bicameral French legislature, with important and defined powers, as well.

In my small book published several years ago, “The Canadian Manifesto,” I proposed an ambitious program for the reinforcement and modernization of the Canadian federal state. I suggested the adoption of some of the aspects of the current French political structure, while retaining the current federal system, which gives the provinces much more authority than the administrative subdivisions of France. And I proposed that the monarch continue to be the monarch of Canada and have the same honorific position King Charles III possesses in Canada, while the co-head of state would be the most constitutionally authoritative figure in the country. 

The King could grow into a unique and highly influential role in helping to smooth relations between the senior Commonwealth countries, which, under my scenario, and assuming they were all amenable to it, would cooperate to play a larger role in world affairs. The King would thus have a role somewhat like that of the president of the European Union, but with an infinitely more exalted prestige of office and tradition. This is the best way I can think of maintaining and capitalizing on the best aspects of the monarchy, while modifying it to changing times and national relationships.

Under the French and British colonial regimes, when the governors of Canada had some power, even though the population was small, often very talented men held the office: Champlain, Frontenac, De la Galissonniere, both Levis and Carleton (Dorchester), Bagot, Elgin, Monck, Aberdeen, Tweedsmuir, (novelist John Buchan) and the last British governor, Field Marshal Lord Alexander. 

The first Canadian governor generals were also suitably distinguished — Vincent Massey, Georges Vanier, Roland Michener, Jules Leger and Jeanne Sauve — but the office has, for most of the last 40 years, been held by unexceptionable individuals, not people elevated because of evident qualifications to be in any sense leaders of the whole country. In this, as in many other spheres of Canadian life, it is time for innovation; Canadian political institutions desperately need a renascence and it must start at the top. As has been said: “If not now, when? If not us, who?”

_________

From the National Post