In the wake of That Interview on Sunday evening, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to demand once again that we abolish the monarchy in Canada, usually with the same simplistic, hand-wavey assumptions that this is something that could be done at the drop of a hat.  It's not, given the realities of our constitutional amending formula whereby the unanimous consent of the provinces would be required, but beyond those particular considerations, there is another reason why it is unlikely we will ever be able to abolish the Canadian monarchy, which is quite simply that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to agree on what a post-monarchical Canada should actually look like.

This is not an unfamiliar problem.  Australia attempted a referendum in 1999 to abolish their monarchy, but quickly found that they could not agree on what should replace it, and the referendum failed.  In the time since, support for republicanism has waned steadily, so much that 57 percent support for a republic post-referendum has declined to 34 percent this January.  Support for the monarchy has also increased rather than just opposition to republicanism, which may reflect the realization that the current system works well and it's not worth the trouble of trying to fix what isn't broken, as opposed to simply chalking it up to the popularity of William and Kate.

Canada's proximity to the United States often gives people here a sense that we are somehow missing out on their political system and presidential politics, oblivious to just what the system actually entails or engenders.  That the last four years happened, culminating in an attempted insurrection by an outgoing president, seems not to register with many of these republican fans, assured that somehow, it'll be different here, no matter that we have not proven ourselves immune to the same populist impulses that plague that country (and have been known to preview some of it here, albeit in slightly less intense ways).  There is no doubt an element of the republicans in this country who would rush to imitate what they see in the US.

There has been another group of republican fans who seem to think that we could somehow imitate Ireland's presidential system minus the Easter Rebellion (probably).  Superficially, there is a lot to recommend in the model, given that it closely mimics our system of Responsible Government, and their president largely acts in a manner that is consistent with our governors general.  But while it may look like an easy enough system to imitate on the surface, the practical realities of such a change are likely not as widely appreciated given how very different the electoral context is in Canada.

While the Irish president is largely expected to be ceremonial and non-partisan, I have particular doubts that this could realistically be recreated in Canada for two reasons: culture, and logistics.  Ireland is fairly culturally homogenous, and while they may be bilingual as we are, they are not bi-cultural, as was the previous description for the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, before multiculturalism became a Thing (which is actually something that sets off Quebec nationalists, who are paranoid that Québécois culture would disappear among the multicultural mosaic).  Trying to find a unifying figure to serve as a non-partisan president that would satisfy both English and French Canada is going to be particularly difficult and would likely wind up exacerbating tensions as a result.  The current system, whereby governors general alternate between Francophone and Anglophone vice-regals, is one of the more workable compromises of the current system that would be nigh-impossible to achieve under an elected office.

As for logistics, Ireland is the size of a postage stamp, and one could conceivably run a national campaign for the office without needing to rely on the existing partisan networks, most especially because of access to fundraising.  It is very, very expensive to run a national campaign in Canada because of the sheer scope of our geography, and political parties can fund leaders' tours because they have the access to capital that can make it happen.  Trying to run for a non-partisan office without access to those same networks would be a gigantic hurdle for anyone to try and overcome.  In fact, one of the reasons why the Fathers of Confederation abandoned the partially-elected nature of legislative councils when they created the Senate was because the province-wide elections for those positions had already become prohibitively expensive in the 1860s imagine what that would look like on a national scale today.  This is also why it would be exceedingly difficult to keep the post non-partisan, because the kind of logistical feats required to mount a presidential campaign would require the help of existing partisans and their networks.  In either case, it would absolutely taint the notion that whoever won could actually be non-partisan.

I also have a hard time believing that, given the cultural influences we are subjected to, that an Irish-style president could be content to be a ceremonial figurehead and not want to have some kind of electoral mandate to fulfil, which would inevitably bump up against the policy platform of an existing political party, creating friction and accusations that the supposedly non-partisan office did indeed hold partisan biases.  They would also want a budget to be able to fulfil those mandate requirements, which gets even messier given that it would essentially require going to the government for an allowance.  While the model looks good on paper, reality would soon intervene.

We have a system right now that works, regardless of what we think of the current office-holder or her heirs and successors.  It's a system that has survived bad monarchs, and it will again, because it's less about who wears the Crown than it is about the system itself.  Change for the sake of change rarely works out well, and unless a clearly articulated replacement can be agreed upon, agitating for abolition is a bit of putting the cart before the horse.  We should remember that most stable, prosperous, and functionally democratic countries are all constitutional monarchies, and it might be a good idea to hang onto a good thing.

Photo Credit: CBS