Editor, the Gauntlet,
Re: "Discarding Canada's figurehead," Feb. 28, 2002,
I'm always amused by complaints about the antique armour in the hallowed halls of government. I'm referring to the English monarchs, who happen to be British-English at this time.
It's easier to tear something down than to build something up, and there's always a mess to clean up afterwards. If your columnists wish to be resoponsible for the clean up, then by all means, take the monarchy and throw it out the window. Referring to the monarchy as obsolete is like referring to flint as "so neanderthal." It is redundant to remind us that the monarch hasn't exactly ruled since becoming constitutional (ca. Magna Carta) and is almost entirely ceremonial.
If you're not English by way of mother tongue, then you can't possibly appreciate English heritage as much as your own. True, we should be fair to all in this country by keeping our cultural past private, but then we should stop singing the national anthem, print only French on our cereal boxes, remove "God" from government documents, remove leafs and colours from flags and then perhaps we could all go around wearing bags over our heads.
Moreover, it's very common for anti-monarchs to spell "freedom" r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c. Personally, I believe a republican democratic system should be directly ratified by the people in conjunction with the elected representatives, direct democracy, but that's not too trendy an opinion these days. And I'm sure any president, prime minister, religious leader, tribal chief, emperor, dictator du jour or your favorite oligarchist otherwise would disagree to any such populist notion due to fear of the masses. On the other hand, who gives a damn what the Queen and her boys have to say about it? They're just museum pieces who capitulate ad hoc regardless.
Given the benefits of rule under the crown-there are many, though I don't have time to argue-I'd hate to see the crown simply dismissed in exchange for something less valuable, like a "republic" run via the system of a limited representative democracy. Not that we should fix anything that isn't broken, though. We're not broken, right?
Comments
I am against majority rule on a small or large scale, both are ineffective. Popularity, in my opinion, does not equal right; Hitler was a populist leader. Democracy or Republicanism is no safeguard from wrong-doing in government. In fact I believe it to be the best way of establishing a counter moral government. Historically speaking, Democracies have proven themselves weak and relativistic when dealing with amoral popular beliefs. Democracy cannot prevent a Hitler, it can only create one.
It seems to me that what is chosen in popular government has nothing to do with a candidate's (or issue's in a direct democracy) ability or value, rather, it is the charisma that surrounds them. In the US, and other nations, the population is not choosing leaders based on what they stand for or the intelligence level the candidate possesses, only the personality plays a role. It is because of this ability to sway popular opinion with slick hair or having a name more prominently displayed that I believe in an oligarchic form of governance.
That statement can truly be called "unpopular" as you described a direct democracy. However, I do not believe that it is a dirty word because of anything other than a knee jerk reaction to an uncommon argument. It is preferable in almost every way to a Democracy. The fact that it has no elected officials removes the need for presentation in our political figures. We can then center our efforts on who is most capable in leadership not who smiles widest.
In the United States, the office of Chairman of the Federal Reserve is not an elected position but an appointed one. It is hardly contested that it would not be a good idea to let the masses vote on who should represent them in this manner. People are too greedy for that system to work. They would elect an official to be completely irresponsible and make life easy for the time being. Why does this truth not carry over to the presidency or to congress? Are our moral and lawmaking bodies less important or less worthy of a stupidity safeguard? My claim is that it is not so, we must give the power to those who are most justified in using it, not those to whom it is mere convenience.