The recent visit of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall to Canada has raised again the question of the role of the monarchy in the Canadian political system. The governor-general’s had web site briefly and incorrectly described her as Canada’s head of state. This claim was quickly retracted after a firm clarification from the prime minister’s office. According to an Angus Reid Poll published on November 13, 43% of Canadians would prefer an elected head of state, 27% wanted to retain the monarchy, while 21% were indifferent.

The monarchy is like the senate: most people agree that it is unsatisfactory, but no one can agree with what should replace it.

In 1999 Australia held a referendum to decide whether it would replace the monarchy and become a republic. The idea of a republic was defeated by a 55%-45% vote nationally with a 95% turnout (Australia has compulsory voting).

The problem the Australians faced is the same problem Canadians would face if they decided to abolish the monarchy: What sort of office do you create as head of state?

The British/Canadian monarchy is a constitutional monarch, and the monarch’s powers have steadily eroded since the nineteenth century. About the only ones that remain are the right to appoint a prime minister and dissolve parliament. Virtually everything else that the monarch or the governor-general does she does “on advice,” in other words because the prime minister tells her to. Because of her personal status, HRH Queen Elizabeth II enjoys more respect and autonomy than the Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian governor-general, but constitutionally their powers are all pretty similar. They must do as they are told, even if the telling is done politely. The great nineteenth century constitutional authority, Walter Bagehot, said that the monarch had the right to warn, the right to advise and the right to be consulted and I think that Her Majesty from time to time still exercises those rights. By contrast, the Canadian governor-general is largely ignored and no Canadian prime minister would tolerate interference from Rideau Hall.

In the Canadian parliamentary system, the prime minister controls all the levers of power. He appoints the members of the cabinet and can dismiss them at will. In fact, the Queen appoints the governor-general on his recommendation and, if he formally requested it, would dismiss her at any time.

In terms of power, then, the prime minister is, in effect, both head of government and head of state. Although diplomatic protocol does not allow him certain fairly trivial privileges when he makes formal visits to other countries, he is, basically, treated as what he is, the overwhelming important political figure in Canada.

The question facing those who might want to replace Canada’s monarch is: Do you really want to change the way that Canada’s system of government works? In other words, do you want a head of state with real or substantial powers, or do you want to continue the present situation where the head of state is a constitutional non-entity, but bears a different name such as president. Any kind of appointed office holder risks the taint of partisanship. Any elected president, however weak the powers of the office, is in some sense a democratic rival to the prime minister.

Although what we currently have is unsatisfactory, the problem is to find something that is not equally unsatisfactory. There is no point in going to a lot of fuss and trouble to change something if the end result is not an improvement.