If you do an internet search on the difference between a citizen and a subject, the historical distinction between a republic and a monarchy will feature prominently in your returns. Citizens of a republic are described as having guaranteed rights, whereas, in a monarchy, rights are a function of royal discretion. A republic empowers its citizens to have an active say in governance, but a monarchy emphasizes loyalty and obedience.
Undoubtedly, this was once a useful analytical approach. But not any longer. For instance, is anyone going to seriously suggest that people in the United Kingdom or Denmark (both constitutional monarchies) are less empowered than those in a republic like France?
It’s also important not to get side-tracked by the question of where a society precisely fits on the libertarian/communitarian continuum.
Yes, maximizing individual autonomy is certainly empowering. But the same can be said of a society that chooses to put a greater emphasis on community. What matters is the degree of consent and whether some kind of reasonable balance prevails.
Take the United States and Canada.
American cultural sensibilities have a “don’t tread on me” dimension that’s largely absent from Canada. For us, the historical disposition towards “peace, order and good government” carries greater weight. Neither is inherently superior to the other.
An empowered political system needs to provide its citizens with a say in governance and pay attention to the concerns expressed. This doesn’t mean that everybody gets what they desire. Not all – or perhaps even most – of the time.
Aspirations and perspectives are far too diverse to accommodate that. And trade-offs are the essence of practical life. To borrow from the wisdom of Mick Jagger and company, “you can’t always get what you want.”
Still, a reasonable degree of connectedness is required. Government shouldn’t be remote or impenetrable.
The animating idea of parliamentary democracy had citizens electing members to represent their interests, concerns and values. These members would then collectively hash things out, arriving at some form of resolution that’s acceptable – however grudgingly – to most people. The more diverse the society, the more water people need to take in their wine. But at least the process brings a range of voices to the table.
To make this work, parliament needs to be a meaningful forum and parliamentarians should have real authority. The degree to which that’s still the rule in Canada has become an open question.
It was in the late 60s/early 70s that the role of individual parliamentarians began to erode and the process of centralizing power in the Prime Minister’s Office took root. Pierre Trudeau was in power and the prospect of more personal authority wasn’t entirely alien to him. (Although it’s often downplayed, Trudeau was an open sympathizer/admirer of authoritarian regimes like Mao’s China and Castro’s Cuba).
This centralizing trend wasn’t unique to Canada. In one form or another, most Western democracies experienced a degree of the same thing, with the ostensible rationale being that the increasing size and complexity of government required it.
And the trend has continued, regardless of the party in power.
Stephen Harper, for instance, was roundly criticized for reputedly treating his cabinet like ciphers. In contrast, Justin Trudeau promised to revive the practice of government by cabinet. His team would be strong individuals unafraid to speak their minds.
That, however, is the opposite of what happened. As Paul Wells succinctly puts it in his recent , the Trudeau governing style that’s emerged is “an elaborate ritual of enforced conformity.”
Political scientist Donald Savoie has been lamenting this pattern for at least 25 years. Here’s what he wrote this past May: “two key decisions regarding Canada’s deployment in Afghanistan, one by a Liberal government, one by a Conservative government, were made in the Prime Minister’s office with the help of a handful of political advisers and civilian and military officials. The relevant ministers of national defence and foreign affairs were not even in the room. These are not isolated cases.”
Although Justin Trudeau didn’t invent this trend, there’s no indication of him having any reservations about it. Quite the contrary, if anything. In addition to an enthusiasm for social transformation along ideologically congenial lines, he has inherited some of his father’s affinity for authoritarian figures.
The question, though, is whether Canadians really care. Perhaps the citizen/subject conundrum is of little general interest. Maybe the only thing that concerns us is whether the goods – as we define them at any given moment – are being delivered.
Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.
©
