By James Bow

You probably have heard that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — Britain’s Prince William and Catherine — completed a successful tour of Canada. The two were greeted by cheering, flag waving crowds, and the media covered their every move.

There were, however, some naysayers. Canadian republicans held anti-monarchy demonstrations in Quebec City and elsewhere, asking what connection a country now over 144 years independent still has with one of the two nations that founded it. What connection, they ask, do heirs of an old absolutist system have to a democracy?

Queen Elizabeth is Queen of England and Queen of Canada, according to our constitution. Despite this, I don’t feel a strong connection to the British monarchy. It serves little purpose in our day-to-day political lives, and is increasingly seen as a historical relic.

If most Canadians wanted to sever their connections with the monarchy and chart our own course, who am I to argue? But I do have to ask, what do you replace the monarchy with?

In Canada, the Queen is represented by the Governor General (currently former UW president David Johnston). Unlike the Queen, his excellency interacts with Canadians every day. He represents Canada to visiting leaders, provides support for our troops, and is a patron, rewarding merit among Canadians in the arts and other fields.

And during the previous minority parliaments he and his predecessor Michaelle Jean had the important task of supervising who was actually in charge of this country, deciding whether to approach another candidate for prime minister should the government fall, or dissolve parliament and call an election.

These duties don’t go away if Canada cuts ties with the monarchy. In the United States, the position of the Governor General is occupied by the president. He is elected, and has a lot more constitutional power. Should Canada get a president? Should the president who sits in Rideau Hall have powers to challenge that of the prime minister who sits in the House of Commons?

Personally, I like the current arrangement. Sitting in the executive level of our government, our Governor General is our de-facto head of state. Though he is not elected, and though he wields limited power, he still acts as a symbol of this country. I would rather that he have these duties, and not our prime minister.

Consider who greets our fallen soldiers when they return from wars like Afghanistan. The Governor General often has this solemn duty, even as the prime minister attends. Whether you agree with the mission in Afghanistan or disagree, the Governor General allows Canadians to express support for the troops in a non-partisan way.

For the prime minister to be front and centre in these ceremonies politicizes them. It is the prime minister who decided that these troops should be sent into combat. Criticize the mission while the prime minister greets our fallen soldiers, and you can be accused of criticizing the soldiers.

Keeping the Governor General’s duties separate from the prime minister makes our head of state non-partisan and thus accessible for all Canadians. The distinction — and it’s an important one — is that the Governor General speaks for Canada, while the prime minister serves Canada.

Symbols have power. It’s that power that brings people out to cheer Prince William, or to protest that we should cut ties with the monarchy altogether.

I think, for the health of our democracy, that our symbol should be kept out of the hands of a politicized individual like the prime minister or a powerful elected president. It should be available to all Canadians regardless of their political stripe.

• • •

James Bow is a writer and a father of two in Kitchener, Ontario.
You can read more about him at http://bowjamesbow.ca/