At Her Majesty's Pleasure?

I have a not-so-modest proposal, but before I get to it I'll start, as is often my habit, with a bit of autobiography.

Prior to moving to Canada in 2003, I never really thought about the existence of Native Americans. Of course I'd heard the standard histories, seen the caricatures in old movies, was able to make some basic distinctions as to the names and locations of the different tribes. But the appropriation of the continent and the setting up there of a new and successful nation state seemed to me, from my American perspective, to be such a thorough fait accompli that any suggestion of the enduring moral obligation to reflect on and perhaps respond to past wrongs would have seemed to me as foreign as a proposal to reconstitute Gondwanaland. This very much in contrast with the legacy of slavery, which never escaped my notice as the gaping wound that defines my country's history and character.

I don't know quite what changed; perhaps it was simply the little, symbolic things that the well-meaning Canadian government does to recognize the First Nations (including, by the way, calling them 'First Nations'), such as providing links on many government websites in Mohawk, Inuktitut, and so on. Perhaps it was the very absence of a legacy of slavery (which, I insist, has only to do with the different exigencies of a different sort of colonial economy: one without large-scale plantation farming), which leaves Canada with only one original sin, rather than two.

Whatever it was, over the past several years I have acquired what I take to be a distinctly Canadian sensibility about the First Nations issue, namely, one that supposes that it is not too late to do something about the wrongs that were done a long time ago; or, rather, that the colonial powers are not absolved of the need to do something simply because the wrongs were done a long time ago. It is still a live issue.

This changing sensibility converges in my life with another: an abrupt surge in my distaste for royalism, which I also first noticed around 2003 (I'd scarcely thought of it before that). I simply do not want to have to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth (or worse, her son) when I'm finally permitted to go through the citizenship ceremony, perhaps 12-15 months from now, and I also would rather not be compelled to mutter the words insincerely.

At the same time, I do find some arguments for a separation of the symbolic and executive powers of the chief-of-state compelling. I think it would be very nice, for example, if there were some other figure alongside the American president whose looks the chattering classes might scrutinize, and whose spouse might be judged as strong-willed, well dressed, etc., while meanwhile the real executive might be judged on his or her accomplishments.

Now in Canada we already do have such a separation: the governor general is the highest political figure in the country, and she is unelected. She is the representative of the country to the queen (or perhaps it is the other way around). The way Canada can dare to call itself a democracy even as its highest political figure remains unelected is by confining her duties to the symbolic realm, to the political theater that is likely ineliminable from the running of states but that, again, should be kept as far away as possible from the people who have to do the real running: the budgeting and law-making.

So such a separation of symbolic and real governance is good, but that the symbolic side should take the form of representation to the Queen of England (in her capacity as Queen of Canada, which, along with 14 other such posts --Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Papua New Guinea, etc.-- is evidently something different) is simply a vestige of a colonial legacy that up until now Canada has only shaken off in a half-assed way. At the same time, Canada is de facto the moral beacon of North America, and this is very much in evidence in the different way, relative to the United States, that it relates to the enduring legacy of its birth out of a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

This brings me to my proposal, which I am nearly certain will be shot down for a whole host of reasons I have not considered: why not shift the center of symbolic power, from a governor general who answers to a foreign monarch, to a council of First Nations elders?

The details, obviously, remain to be worked out. I imagine it would be constituted from representatives of the different major Nations, and they would take turns sending forth a chief to occupy the council's presidency. The principle duties of the council or its president would be to represent Canada at a ceremonial level. Perhaps also it could be consulted on questions of use of public land and other matters of environmental concern. The exact degree of involvement in the decision-making process could be determined later; in any case, it would be at least as great as it is now, even as the main purpose of such a change would be not to alter the way policy is made, but rather to officialize and solemnize the self-understanding of Canada as in its essence a nation that was built through the appropriation of other people's territory, and that is now prepared to do what it can, short of sending the descendants of the settlers home (I'm certainly not going anywhere), in order to redeem itself.

Comments

[Klausi]

Very good idea. The ceremonies/dances/ect involving these 1st nation presidents would also be way more impressive than an old English lady with an expensive hat shaking hands.

From what I hear, another nation where they take their 1st nations seriously is NZ.

[Nalini]

This is brilliant -- let's start a campaign, as a country we should be debating how to severe how ties with the monarchy, as the inevitable passing of Queen Elizabeth will be upon us sooner rather than later. While she reluctantly oversaw the independence of colonies during her reign, there is absolutely no tie between former colonies and Prince Charles or ...Prince Williams. And sentimentality does not bring social change. THANK YOU -- I hope to see this article reprinted widely.

[Tom]

Excuse my European ignorance. I've always been confused about whether Canada's First Nations consider themselves Canadian citizens, or members of independent sovereign nations with certain Canadian rights by treaty. If the former, given that citizenship implies equality, what makes them special? If the latter, what makes them suitable political symbols of Canada?

Sorry for the crude analogy, but this argument from guilt seems about as reasonable as making an Israeli chief rabbi president of Germany.

[melph]

The fundamental difference lies in the continuity of polities, Tom. Hitler-Germany, on the one hand, is an episode of Germany's past. It has been recognised by Germany as a time when its people committed atrocities and mass murder of an unseen extent. Germany today has eradicated all remains and rudiments of the Nazi-time, and the entire polity is created with the purpose to prevent historical repetition.

In Canada, on the other hand, the same polity from the 'original sin' is essentially still in place. The political system is that of the Coloniser with relatively little consideration of the pre-colonial social structures. Increasingly, there are signs of good will from governments to integrate (not to assimilate) the First Nations. But, for them, this remains integration into a foreign and imposed system of government. Hence, granting them greater political power is not primarily a remedy for the past. It would also mitigate some discriminatory effects of the current Canadian polity.

[Picador]

I had the exact same impressions upon moving from the US to Canada in 2007: first, the contrast between America's recognition of slavery and Canada's of Aboriginal issues; and second, of the absurdity of the remaining ties to the monarchy. The second issue, of course, was made all the more urgent during the coalition/proroguement episode last year, when the GG's position was revealed to be, after all, more than purely symbolic. On the other hand, my antipathy toward the monarchy is tempered somewhat by the fact that "democratic" regimes like the US now have heads of state who claim powers that no monarch has dared to exercise in the last 500 years.

Your solution strikes as an extremely elegant way of killing two birds with one stone.

[Mark]

An important question would end up being whether or not the First Nations would want this. Historically, and some some might say ironically given the little actual power of a constitutional monarch, most First Nations have considered their relationship with the Crown to be above their relationship to any particular Canadian government. Treaties were made between each Nation and the monarch, and much still relies on the terms of these treaties. (This all depends on the history which I have learned, though, and history is always questionable.)

But there is another question: would such a set-up as this blog post proposes do all that much to help First Nations? Other than conveniently making them mascots for a Canadian government to parade about before an international audience--"Look at how much we esteem our Native Peoples and their cultures!"--while members of First Nations remain with the highest rates of incarceration in Canadian prisons, the lowest health rates by most standards, and among the poorest groups in what the world knows as Canada?

[melph]

Without deviating too much, from a New Zealand-perspective, your point appears legitimate, Mark. The one fundamental Treaty here (the Treaty of Waitangi) was signed by Maori and the Crown; and today, this relationship poses a fundamental hurdle in New Zealand's considerations of becoming and independent republic.

As far as your second point: perhaps symbolic powers are not to be underestimated. Many scholars argue that they are a first, visible step towards accumulating legitimacy and, as a consequence, more tangible power and influence.

[Nick Maley]

Australia and New Zealand closely parallel Canada. Similar consitutions, similar concerns about coming to terms with a legacy of aboriginal dispossession, similar disconnection with British royalty. Few Aussies or Kiwis would think a proposal like Justin's is the right way to deal with it though. It would deepen the divisions rather than heal them. Tribal/ethnic identity is not a basis for leadership in a immigrant societies like Canada Australia and NZ. Symbolic leaders such as the Governor General should be chosen primarily for their accomplishments and contribution to the wider society rather than their ethnic background. So much the better if they have a minority background, but it should never be the primary qualification.

[melph]

I disagree, Nick. The situations in the three mentioned countries are significantly different. Particularly Australia merits no mention in the list, and the constitutions today are not that similar; specifically not, in questions of the political participation of the respective countries' Indigenous peoples.

New Zealand has no written constitution, but the Treaty of Waitangi is considered the fundamental document; a Treaty between Maori tribes and the Crown.

Canada has similar treaties and a written constitution that recognises Indigenous rights. In addition, the courts are leaning towards common law and constitutional interpretation that strengthens Indigenous self-determination in local contexts.

Australia, to my knowledge, still struggles to incorporate Indigenous human rights into its Constitution, and has not proceeded much further than a recent symbolic apology.

[melph]

Moreover, it is problematic to consider Indigenous peoples one of many 'generic' minorities. Likewise the term 'immigrant societies' drops the fact that there were people before the waves of colonial immigration; and that these people had political systems in place that were eradicated without their consent.

The strive of these peoples for justice and self-determination is of a different quality than that of, say, first generation immigrants who who chose to move to Alberta in full knowledge of (and often even because of) the political system in place. Clearly, among the latter, no group has a legitimate claim for her minority to be treated differently than other immigrated minorities.

Measuring Indigenous minorities merely by their democratic clout (number=power), however, reproduces exactly those discriminatory pressures that all governments are currently apologising for. The result is that the Indigenous minorities are permanently overruled by the national majority, even on issues that are of fundamental concern to them, and of marginal importance to "the wider society".

Hence, I support the call for a parallel institution to judge whether an issue is of fundamental importance to the Indigenous peoples and, if so, not to overrule their position. If we genuinely agree that colonisation was wrong, that's the least we can do.

I apologise for the length.

[Cathy]

"The way Canada can dare to call itself a democracy even as its highest political figure remains unelected is by confining her duties to the symbolic realm"

Is it really only symbolic? As you may know our governor general in Australia, on behalf of the queen in the mid 1970s sacked the elected government. Now, it seems to me that was a good thing. We had another election to choose something that would function. If the electorate so chose it could reaffirm its faith in the previously elected government....The whole thing worked well and I would never willingly give up the relationship between the Australian democratic system and the Queen.

Of course, as you say, there is the problem that she has a son....

[Aaron]

I have a few quick corrections to offer:

Justin, First Nations people are not the only Native / Aboriginal people in Canada. They are a semi-autonomous group that does not include Metis or Inuit people. Whether this alters your scheme, I'm not sure.

Tom, the answer is `both'. Native Canadian peoples are `citizens' of semi-autonomous groups on reservations, and certified as `Indians' by the Federal Ministry of Indian Affairs. Unlike in Germany, Canadian citizenship is given by lineage and birthplace. So, Native Canadians are Canadian citizens, simpliciter. How they individually identify themselves, I won't attempt to answer.

**

And Justin, why not start a campaign for a Native Canadian GG? Seems a lot simpler / might actually happen.

[Julia]

I'm very late to the conversation, but having lived most of my life in Manitoba, a Canadian province in which over 15% of the population is aboriginal (a figure that will only grow), I really want to agree with Mark's second concern above. What is achieved by turning First Nations peoples into Canadian mascots? This sort of thing is already done. Europeans definitely embrace the image of the North American aboriginal without knowing any of the current difficulties. Winnipeg (Manitoba's capital) itself has many visible reminders of the art and culture of our native peoples, and many visible reminders of their poverty at the same time. I'm not sure what symbolic power can do in this situation. We're talking about butting up against a global capitalist system that demands, at minimum, economic assimilation.

Justin, it's interesting to hear you suggest that it's not too late to right the wrongs (or at least make some sort of amends). As a lifelong Canadian, I am not nearly as optimistic. I was certainly trained well enough growing up to prefer the notion of integration to assimilation, but I just cannot imagine how aboriginal lifestyles can be successfully integrated into contemporary society. A culture is not only its art and its leadership. It is an economic model.