Once again I post, claiming that I have returned to the matter at hand. Unfortunately for me, I became aware that the entire thing is due on Thursday only the day before yesterday. Oh well. I started reading on Canadian politics. This seems to be the incorrect - or rather, inefficient way to go about this, as I quickly got sidetracked and began to read about the Queen. I have not yet moved past the Wikipedia challenge stage of research. Still, because it was interesting, I shall reveal my findings.
The Queen is the constitutional Monarch of Canada, and is the living embodiment of Canada, and may be referred to simply as Canada. She is the head of 15 independent states, each with their legally distinct monarchical systems. Succession is hereditary and immediate upon the current's monarch death, thus the phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!" Charles, Prince of Wales, is heir apparent. The citizens of Canada pay no dues to the Queen, except when she is on duty representing Canada either internally or abroad. Her reign witnessed the ongoing transition from the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, it being already established upon her coronation that she be the head of independant nations no longer part of the Empire her position being agreed upon by the various nations in something that is similar to a treaty, i.e. one nation may decide to no longer recognize her as monarch, but she will still be the monarch of the other nations. Her role is legal and practical, but not political. The sovereign is given power over the state, but since canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Crown functions as a corporation, with the monarch at the center of a construct which then splits into executive, legislative and judicial branches. Her role, as I understand it, is to regulate stable governance, and safeguard the abuse of power as a representant of the people above government and the political parties. In a way, this suddenly seems incredibly important. If all is well she only observes, and I think her position prevents the commonwealth realms from succumbing to dictatorship. A cleverly designed stratagem where the state directs itself in times of peace, but has a failsafe if things go wrong. I am unsure as to whether or not she has the authority to act, and to what extent, if the constituion is ever threatened. However, her presence forwards the interests of Democracy. Because she holds little political power, she is a non-partisan, which gives her the neutral credibility that party leaders and the MP do not have. In her authority as Queen, she follows the political flow of Canada, and acts in it's best interests.
As it turns out, this was a somewhat fruitful piece of research. Alas, completely [edit: and shamelessly] taken from Wikipedia, so lacking in credibility. Oh well. It seemed researched enough.
[edit: This note is obviously biased. I like the Queen. Still, it is good that she holds little direct political power. The country should decide on matters of the country, so long as the country can agree and things remain civil. Plus there is no denying that the monarch is only human.]
This is an interesting turn, this queen business. Important. Since I was born in a country that counted among its blessings having thrown off the shackles of the monarchy (note the biased wording), I found the queen, or rather the role of the queen, very difficult to understand when I first began to live in Canada. But now I've come to appreciate the role of the monarch in brokering (yes! that word!) and guaranteeing the legitimacy of the state even when our elected representatives behave like fools. Or knaves. Or craven humans. Or lie. Or the government falls. She's the guarantee that we can have faith in faith. Or something like that. (See earlier comments on your earliest comments.) Much more to say about this...A HUGE bibliography that is in fact very interesting. Here's one bit to consider--a book called The King's Two Bodies.
ReplyDeleteFunny to think how someone born to a post could be considered to "guarantee" the claims of a "democracy." What's your take on how to square that circle?