To Deborah Vuylsteke
Dear Deborah,
I am always eager to write to a fellow teacher. I consider you a peer because I spent much of my career – more than forty years – as a university professor and executive. And while I have a different job now, I’ll always remain a teacher at heart. I still rely heavily on the skills I honed in my teaching career, as I carry out many of the same duties – speaking to large and hopefully attentive audiences, sharing my advice with young people, and recognizing notable achievements (although I now note achievement with the red and white ribbons instead of a red pen).
I am always aware that when people meet me in my role as governor general – representative of the Queen of Canada – they must wonder why our country has a constitutional monarchy at all. I thank you for exploring this important question with your students and for your efforts to integrate study of the monarchy in Canada into regular curricula. I share your enthusiasm (not a surprise, I’m sure) and thought I might weigh in on the question with a few insights of my own – teacher to teacher.
With the principle of the Divine Right of Kings safely now in the dustbin of philosophical history and a number of oppressive monarchical regimes rightly toppled since the French Revolution, we can now see a monarchy as one choice that people can make when they decide how to govern their own affairs and, in particular, how to settle the matter of a head of state without polarizing their countries. What the monarchy gets us or prevents us from getting is therefore a question worthy of serious, ongoing scrutiny. I’ve found this question is not neatly resolved by simplification; so for instance, reducing the matter to merely whether we should exchange the monarchy for a republican government doesn’t seem to lead to much clarity.
Aristotle preferred to look at difficult questions by identifying the root issue of each and asking, “What is it for?” So I like to ask, “What is national government for?” And then evaluate whether Canada’s constitutional monarchy meets those needs. Peace, prosperity, opportunity, health, security and defence, and protection of freedoms must be high on the list of reasons to have a national government, and after seventy or so years of watching it in operation, I would say our system has arguably served us better than most other systems have served their own populations.
Let’s intensify that evaluation a bit. I am always keen to look back into history to gain a better understanding of the present. When Confederation was an infant idea, the possibility of becoming a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy was loudly debated. We chose the latter not from some patriotic sentimentality toward Great Britain (although some Canadians may well have had that affection), but because it seemed at the time the best structure by which the new nation of Canada could achieve two things. It could assert itself as strong and unique in the emerging theatre of North America, and it could be flexible enough to meet the varied needs of its citizens – original inhabitants and immigrants alike – as those needs evolved.
Looking around then at the totalitarian states such as Russia, few in the 1860s held the naive assumption that monarchies guarantee rights and freedoms. There was also widespread appreciation that republics too can fail their own populations miserably. The most telling example was close to home. For four full years (1861–1865) during the debate about governance of our own country, Canadians watched Americans slaughter each other during a civil war in which 750,000 Americans died at each other’s hands, arguably only because their definitions of republic could not be resolved. In Canada, the Fathers of Confederation (a moniker that reminds us all of the patriarchy of the times) argued that republicanism – far more than our constitutional monarchy – required uniformity to thrive, and that maintaining uniformity would inevitably lead to clashes such as the American Civil War. They concluded unanimously that the political divisions of pure republicanism could easily lead to failure of the state.
The ideals of republicanism were also well known and understood. When people of free will are impeded by nothing other than the limit of their imaginations, their unfettered ability to achieve common goals through entirely democratic means is the logical foundation of a system. But our founders wanted a form of government that could inspire allegiance without requiring that everyone believe the same thing. It was an early nod to the principle of pluralism that makes this country so pleasant to live in. Indeed, at the outset, it was appreciated (not always warmly) that the constitutional monarchy would allow the provinces unprecedented local control over their own affairs – so much so that the debate rages on (as it did then) about who should be in charge of what. The resulting Confederation is a dynamic unique to Canada in its dimension and proof to me that our system of government has in no way restricted the rights of our citizens to have control over their own affairs. Quite the opposite. It’s loud, it’s messy, and it’s fundamentally democratic.
I’ve also had the opportunity of late to see how the involvement of the Crown through its representatives nationally and in every Canadian province can inspire the best by recognizing the best. Our orders (such as the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit, and the many provincial orders) and our decorations (among them military valour, bravery, and meritorious service) are a system of recognition that, because it carries the authority of the Crown, stands above the level of politics, as it celebrates the very character of the people who inhabit, nurture, and shape this country. I like especially how novelist Robertson Davies expressed this idea. He wrote, “In a government like ours, the Crown is the abiding and unshakeable element; politicians may come and go, but the Crown remains and certain aspects of our system pertain to it which are not dependent on any political party. In this sense, the Crown is the consecrated spirit of Canada.”
We have seen throughout our history this spirit of the Crown and its representatives in action – how it has a power that focuses public attention on that which unites us, that which should be celebrated, that to which we should pay attention and, in the process, how this spirit helps us develop our communities and build our nation. I have also learned first-hand over the last handful of years how much this gentle but critical spirit within our constitutional monarchy is respected and cherished.
That’s what I think a monarchy is for. My thanks to you and your students for considering such a useful question. Now let the debate rage on!
Fondly and with deep thanks,
David
Deborah Vuylsteke is a history teacher at St. Pius X High School in Ottawa. She has worked with officials at Rideau Hall to uncover the best resources and methods to illuminate for her students the role of the monarchy in Canada. The red and white ribbons Mr. Johnston refers to are those of the Order of Canada.