5 ms·

I think it would be more accurate to state that the Prime Minister's power and authority exist at the pleasure of the British Monarchy. Legally, the British Mon

by codexb 3y ago

I think it would be more accurate to state that the Prime Minister's power and authority exist at the pleasure of the British Monarchy. Legally, the British Monarch, and by extension, the Governor General of Canada has ultimate authority over the Canadian government. I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long.

someotherperson 3y ago
This is the case in almost all Commonwealth countries no? The system works because the country is still relatively healthy. Nobody really cares at the end of the day what leadership style the country has, as long as the leadership ensures that the laws represent the ethics, that there is some concept of justice, and general healthy HDI (whether it's safety, work opportunities, housing, education, whatever). Democracy is usually seen as some way to achieve this, but there is also a sharp difference between healthy democracies and democracies that start and end at the ballot. You can equally have dictatorships that are just as healthy, if not healthier, than many democracies (for example the UAE or Oman).
asvitkine 3y ago
Canada has it's own monarchy, legally separate from the British one. Except the monarch is the same person and the rules of succession are the same. But King of Canada is a separate title.
rootusrootus 3y ago
I thought Canada was legally distinct, and only the person Charles III is shared with the UK? I.e. he's the King of Canada. It seems like it's primarily tradition at this point which makes this happen, rather than a hard requirement.
macspoofing 3y ago
>I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long. Why? What current problems would changing this fix?
bawolff 3y ago
This is sort of misleading. First off its the king of canada, which technically is a separate position that just happens to be held by the same person (personal union), with same succession rules, and also a treaty where everyond is supposed to agree before changing succession rules. More importantly it is a constitutional monarchy. The crown can't just do what it pleases but is bound by the constitution. A big part of that is the king must listen to the advice of the prime minister/the privy council, and that the prime minister must have the confidence of the legeslative branch. In practise the king lacks pretty much all power. There are a couple edge cases (fire the governor general maybe) and still a lot of soft power, but he is essentially a distant figurehead.
- FFP999 3y ago
  Except that the Governor General actually does have some power and it's come up in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional.... So the ability to hire and fire the Governor General at will is actually a pretty major power, even if it's only been used that one time.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I wouldn't say just that one time - well it didn't get to the level of the australia one, there have been recent times where governor general has mattered in canada. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hall_workplace_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hal... when it was unclear if payette would resign willingly or have to be fired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... Still nonetheless i would consider these edge cases that only happen rarely.
    - FFP999 3y ago
      I guess whether Canada or Australia want to be constitutional monarchies or not is up to them, and not my business being neither Canadian nor Australian, but it just seems strange to me for them to allow the monarch anything more than symbolic power. Then again, I live in Massachusetts, and historically we're...not huge on kings here.

by codexb 3y ago

someotherperson 3y ago

This is the case in almost all Commonwealth countries no? The system works because the country is still relatively healthy. Nobody really cares at the end of the day what leadership style the country has, as long as the leadership ensures that the laws represent the ethics, that there is some concept of justice, and general healthy HDI (whether it's safety, work opportunities, housing, education, whatever). Democracy is usually seen as some way to achieve this, but there is also a sharp difference between healthy democracies and democracies that start and end at the ballot. You can equally have dictatorships that are just as healthy, if not healthier, than many democracies (for example the UAE or Oman).

asvitkine 3y ago

Canada has it's own monarchy, legally separate from the British one. Except the monarch is the same person and the rules of succession are the same. But King of Canada is a separate title.

rootusrootus 3y ago

I thought Canada was legally distinct, and only the person Charles III is shared with the UK? I.e. he's the King of Canada. It seems like it's primarily tradition at this point which makes this happen, rather than a hard requirement.

macspoofing 3y ago

>I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long. Why? What current problems would changing this fix?

bawolff 3y ago

This is sort of misleading. First off its the king of canada, which technically is a separate position that just happens to be held by the same person (personal union), with same succession rules, and also a treaty where everyond is supposed to agree before changing succession rules. More importantly it is a constitutional monarchy. The crown can't just do what it pleases but is bound by the constitution. A big part of that is the king must listen to the advice of the prime minister/the privy council, and that the prime minister must have the confidence of the legeslative branch. In practise the king lacks pretty much all power. There are a couple edge cases (fire the governor general maybe) and still a lot of soft power, but he is essentially a distant figurehead.

FFP999 3y ago
Except that the Governor General actually does have some power and it's come up in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional.... So the ability to hire and fire the Governor General at will is actually a pretty major power, even if it's only been used that one time.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I wouldn't say just that one time - well it didn't get to the level of the australia one, there have been recent times where governor general has mattered in canada. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hall_workplace_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hal... when it was unclear if payette would resign willingly or have to be fired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... Still nonetheless i would consider these edge cases that only happen rarely.
  - FFP999 3y ago
    I guess whether Canada or Australia want to be constitutional monarchies or not is up to them, and not my business being neither Canadian nor Australian, but it just seems strange to me for them to allow the monarch anything more than symbolic power. Then again, I live in Massachusetts, and historically we're...not huge on kings here.