By John von Heyking, Oct 30, 2009 in Musings, Pedagogy and Teaching
Part of what makes Canadians think they are progressive is that their original 1867 Constitution did not give them responsible government, and that subsequent efforts, especially since the inception of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have brought them closer to genuine democracy. According to Janet Ajzenstat in, "Did We Get a Good Constitution in 1867?: Popular Sovereignty in the Canadian Founding,” this argument is bogus. As one of the editors of Canada’s Founding Debates that the class reads, Ajzenstat explains the meaning of responsible government and summons evidence, from the debates, on why Canadians originally had responsible government (or “democracy,” as we so opaquely put it today). She also raises the question of whether a constitution, in order truly to be democratic (or republican), should be ratified by the people at large or whether parliamentary ratification is sufficient (or simply elite-driven).
The final two readings reflect perhaps a fundamental ambiguity of the Canadian regime. In "A Question of Trust: Parliamentary Democracy and Canadian Society,” David E. Smith provides a nuanced critique of recent efforts to “democratize” Parliament by explaining its unique fabric. Parliament (or any political regime) cannot be changed without inadvertently altering something else that might do more harm. Pull on a thread and the entire garment is distorted. For example, he argues that referenda are inherently un-parliamentarian and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary authority in the regime. Parliamentary authority, Smith argues, derives from the fact that Canada is a monarchy. All authority flows from the monarchy. Smith’s argument cannot be confused with superficial observations that Queen Elizabeth does not actually rule on a daily basis. Smith’s argument points to structures of authority that underpin the Canadian polity.
Rubbish, says historian Christopher Moore, who, in “Our Canadian Republic,” argues that all authority in Canada flows from the people, which, he argues, is the foundation of responsible government. Moore wrote a wonderful book, 1867: How the Fathers Made a Deal, in which he explains how their deliberations were in keeping with popular sovereignty (indeed, more so than today’s politicians can achieve).
Who’s right: Smith, who locates sovereignty in the monarchy? Or Moore, who locates it in the people? Maybe both?
2 Responses to "Introducing The Subfields of Political Science: Big Questions for Contemporary Politics, Part IV"
Anthony Gill on Oct 31, 2009
Well, that's an easy question -- Moore. I don't care how much a piece of paper vests authority in some ambiguous meta-authority known as the "monarchy" (or the "state" of the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man), if the citizenry decide to stop obeying the laws then the "monarchy" can only eat cake.
Also, I'm not sure what "responsible government" is. "Responsible government" seems to imply that there is some right combinatin of people and/or policy that will run perfectly and all we have to do is find that mix. Do you mean to say "responsive" govedrnment?
John von Heyking on Oct 31, 2009
Your first point is true only up to a point. The meaning of a political regime is its internal logic, which brings forth not only its laws (which citizens may disobey) but also the moral character of its citizens. This is an argument made by Aristotle and Plato that still seems true of the modern state. The debate between Moore and Smith is exactly the root of the regime in Canada - whether its regime logic, as it were, flows from above or from below.
Walter Bagehot describes the principle of responsible government in his ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. Canada's Founders would have learned a lot from that historical case. I discuss the question of responsible government here: http://lehrman.isi.org/blog/post/view/id/105/