Shaping Nations: Constitutionalism and Society in Australia and Canada

13. Canada's Republican Silence

13 Canada's Republican Silence DAVID E. SMITH The argument that follows begins with a presumption. Like Conan Doyle's dog that did not bark, it is assumed that Canada ought to have a republican movement or debate or, at least, some definable republican sentiment. Why this is not the case is the subject of this paper. The reason for thinking Canada's condition worthy of study is the experience of Australia. There, a stratum of opinion in favour of republicanism has longbeen evident and there, inthe lastquarter-century a movement to achieve that objective culminated in November 1999 in a referendum onthe question.Theoptiononoffer was rejectedby the voters not because republicanism itself was unpopular but because the model presented was, in asense, not republican enough. ThusAustraliaprovides backdrop for these remarks, and if justification is required, it is that Australia and Canada share more in common than either does with any other nation - constitutional forms, settlement histories and economic foundations. Opinion polls in Canada reveal large and growing support for the abolition of monarchy and, by inference, the establishment of a republic. Whether this attitude,which isinverselyrelated to the age of respondents, is considered interesting is for others to judge.What is significant is that none of the thousands who favour a republic do anything about it.There could hardly be a clearer example of passive opinion, except when this finding is placed alongside the half or more of the population who say 260 SHAPING NATIONS they prefer the status quo. The Monarchist League of Canada vocally defends the Crown but can make no claim to speak for the bulk of nonrepublican sympathizers. On this issue, as on anumber ofothers,Carolyn Tuohy's description of Canada as a country of "institutionalized ambivalence" captures the intense apathy that surrounds the question.1 Thecontrastbetween the two countries issostarkasto lend credence to Sir Joseph Pope's epigram that, when it comes to Canadian politics, "Australian precedent [is] no precedent".2 While the argument that follows does not adopt so categorical a view of Australian experience, it does offer three explanations for the contrast in so far as the issue of republican sympathy is concerned. First, there is geography. Geography is the basis of the claim that because of the powerful republic next door, Canada had no choice in its constitution. Eitherit would continue, once the colonies federated in 1867, as a constitutional monarchy or it would not survive. In The English Constitution, published in 1867, Walter Bagehot asserted that "first-rate nations" had to choose between presidential and parliamentary government. "No state," he argued, "can be first-rate which is not a Government by discussion, and those are the only existing species of that Government".3 And by then Americanshad made their choice,a fact John A. Macdonald recognized at the Quebec Conference when he said the Crown was not an issue. As an explanation for the initial rejection of a republican form of government, this reference to geography is true as far as it goes. But it only touches the surface. To talk of North America divided between a republic and a monarchy is to restrict the matter to public traditions. In other words, to focus the debate in this manner is to limit it to the large themes of liberalism, socialism and conservatism. Those acquainted with the theories Louis Hartz and Gad Horowitz are familiar with the cultural interpretations they offer in the 1960s for the respective strength of values that support private and public ownership in Canada and the United States. More critically, the Horowitz theory emphasizes a public tradition in Canada which isEnglish, while it ignores private traditions that are not English. Thepublic tradition isstockCanadian history: the antidemocratic feelings ofthe Fathers ofConfederation, echoing similar British sentiment, are the most obvious example that could be cited. Private traditions are less familiar and less easy to document. However, in the matter of Canada's ambivalent response to republicanism, they are of more CANADA'S REPUBLICAN SILENCE 261 explanatory value than Canada's reputedly conservative traditions of public ownership and state sponsorship. Theprivatetraditions derive from the common North American experience, of which the availability of cheap land and a shared demographic base are principal factors. Both devalued the premium placed on republicanism. The massive amount ofland; the common patterns ofowner-operated farms in the East and, later, the much larger Prairie homesteads broken and farmed by resident owners;the similarity...