| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Should Canada become a Republic? |
 |
|
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/02/jonathan-kay-on-the-chaos-in-ottawa-this-is-why-canada-should-become-a-republic.aspx
| Quote: |
Since the early days of the National Post, I've been one of the few pundits arguing that we need to dump the monarchy. After watching this week's chaos in Ottawa, I'd go further: Let's dump Parliament altogether and move to a U.S.-style Republican system of government.
My rationale should be obvious to anyone following events in Ottawa. Since so much of what happens depends on the whim of the Governor-General, our nation's intellectuals have engrossed themselves in history books, arguing about whether Micha�lle Jean should properly be guided by this or that ancient precedent from our dimly remembered past. To make sense of it all, one needs to become expert on the Boer-era minority government of Sir Whatshisname, who fell after being undercut by Lord Dustywig. Will the GG find that precedent persuasive, we all wonder? Or will she go further back in time, to the great British confrontation between the Whigs and the Whags? And what role will the involvement of separatists play in her thinking � a scenario that requires recourse to the ancient councils of the Orkneys? Would she accept Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament? If not, why? Dear lord, why?
It seems entirely farcical to me that out country's future should depend on the musings of a charming but unelected woman whose erstwhile claim to celebrity was working for a public television network. The imprecision, pomp, ambiguity and general fustiness of our Parliamentary system has no place in a modern nation in which every other important institution � from finance to taxation to criminal law to commercial contracts � is subject to rigid, predictable rules. We imagine ourselves to live in a society that venerates the rule of law, not the rule of man � so why do we subject the ultimate arbiter of Canadian governance to the caprice � and let's not pretend that's not the right word � of a single individual?
It so happens that, with Barack Obama gradually rolling out his star-studded Cabinet in recent days, I'd already been giving quite a lot of thought to the deficiencies of our Parliamentary system. The wonderful thing about the American system � the aspect that never gets talked about for some reason � is that the President can appoint any genius he likes to Cabinet spots � people like Larry Summers, Robert Gates and Colin Powell. And these people do not have to kiss babies, run in by-elections, or get sham appointments to some upper chamber in order to gain their offices. The President, as ultimate decider, just picks the best people, they accept and � that's it.
Here in Canada, on the other hand, it is not considered unusual for senior cabinet posts to get staffed by well-connected MPs without any intellectual interest, or significant background, in the relevant area of governance. The best recent example is Maxime Bernier at Foreign Affairs, but spend a minute thinking about it and dozens of others will leap to mind.
This deficiency will play out in coming days, as Jack Layton and his corps of social activists will take on no fewer than six Cabinet portfolios. And one can only guess what hack Dion loyalists will get plums as well. All the while, the future of the country will be held in thrall to the state of mind that happens to inhabit the mind of Ms. Jean on any given Ottawa morn. What a strange and archaic way to run an otherwise wonderful country. |
I've long supported Canada becoming a republic. The country needs a coherent constitution and an elected head of state. This likely impossible as Quebec (the Bloc) would stand in the path of any meaningful reforms that might diminish their very special privileges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And reprint everything? Forget it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| never |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy_arcade
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like the American system??? Yeesh.
That's exactly what we don't need. Democracy only for the super-rich
and election campaigns that are almost as long as the presidential term.
Finally, one person who gets to act as virtual dictator based on a 1 percent majority.
Sorry, stick with a parliamentary system but bring in proportional representation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why bother becoming a republic? The same powers will be running the show from behind the scenes anyway. It really makes no difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ditto. At least MPs are accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Republican format only offers stability.
The type of stability needed to be a world power.
Canada has no need for this sort of stability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jandar wrote: |
The Republican format only offers stability.
The type of stability needed to be a world power.
Canada has no need for this sort of stability. |
the dumbest comment i have seen in a while.
Great Britain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jandar wrote: |
The Republican format only offers stability.
The type of stability needed to be a world power.
Canada has no need for this sort of stability. |
Yes, just look at this illustrious stable list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_republics#List_of_Republics_by_Type
No thanks.
Last edited by bangbayed on Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bangbayed wrote: |
| Jandar wrote: |
The Republican format only offers stability.
The type of stability needed to be a world power.
Canada has no need for this sort of stability. |
Exactly. Just look at the ROK. |
The ROK is a terrible hybrid of the Presidential system and the parliamentary system. Even Koreans will admit its not a good system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, Canada ought not because America is? Typical drivel from liberal arts grads.
There are reasonable arguments against a republican system, but none have been articulated here. However, in 2008, a hereditary monarchy determining the course of a major political event is not appropriate. Perhaps we can tweak the system without a major overhaul.
And Kay's lamenting of the limited choices in picking cabinet heads stands tall. Obama is able to pick the best of the best (and will we hope do so) and this is a strength of their system over ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Should Canada become a Republic? |
|
|
| No, I think we should keep whatever slim ties to tradition we still have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc_ido
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Should Canada become a Republic? |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Let's dump Parliament altogether and move to a U.S.-style Republican system of government. |
Nah, the Republicans lost the election, so the USA must be a Democracy now. 
It's interesting that the author is moaning about unelected heads of state (though it's been my impression that the roles of Monarch and Governor-General are largely ceremonial and quite removed from actual power) while advocating a system where the President/PM appoints his/her cabinet without any electoral or screening processes whatsoever.
Sure, in the USA the President can appoint any genius s/he likes - but s/he could just as easily fill the positions with cronies/friends/out-and-out criminals. At least with a fully elected cabinet you have some accountability to the voters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Should Canada become a Republic? |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's interesting that the author is moaning about unelected heads of state (though it's been my impression that the roles of Monarch and Governor-General are largely ceremonial and quite removed from actual power) while advocating a system where the President/PM appoints his/her cabinet without any electoral or screening processes whatsoever. |
There is no electoral process but there is a screening process. The system of confirmation by elected reps. No?
| Quote: |
| Sure, in the USA the President can appoint any genius s/he likes - but s/he could just as easily fill the positions with cronies/friends/out-and-out criminals. At least with a fully elected cabinet you have some accountability to the voters. |
Yes, this is true. But I'd rather he/she be able to pull from the whole society and not just the 150+ elected reps. Neither is perfect, but I believe one is better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just a reminder, guys: Cabinet appointments in the US must be approved by a majority of the Senate. This will probably be less relevant for Obama since there's a clear Democratic majority. But it was an issue for Bush re: Attorney General Mukasey and others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
