Parliament and democracy in the 21st century: the crown and the constitution.

• Author: Benoit, Paul

This fall the Queen will be making her twentieth visit to Canada (not including her tour as Princess in October 1951). For half a century, she has personally contributed, beyond measure, to the strengthening of civil society in Canada. When not acting on her own, her representatives in all the capital cities -- the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors -- and members of her family have assisted in carrying out the different functions involved in the royal mission. Working jointly and severally, they form a firm that we call the Crown.

Prior to the Queen's visit, it is fitting that we get a better grasp on the constitutional role of this many-facetted institution.

Despite the teachings of political scientists John Stewart (a former MP and Senator) and David Smith, many Canadians continue to think and speak of our constitution in the tri-partite terms of a legislature embodied in Parliament; an executive embodied in the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues; and a judiciary embodied in the Courts and Charter.

I propose that we think of our constitution in less legalistic terms, that we approach it from a combined historical and sociological perspective. From this perspective, we ask: what holds Canada together? With so many centrifugal forces at work in today's world, is there still a basis left for our sovereignty? How do our major public institutions contribute to the coherence of civil society? To begin to answer these questions requires an appreciation of our institutional heritage.

Monarchy has played a central role in the integration of society throughout the history of the West. But that role has evolved greatly, particularly in Great Britain as that society grew in complexity. Indeed, since the 17th century, in a continuous process of differentiation, the British Crown has undergone four major transformations.

Sharing Power: The Glorious Revolution of 1688 consolidated the basic framework for the Crown's sharing of power with representatives from the different estates of the realm. The Monarch's power could no longer be exercised absolutely. The liberty of the realm could no longer be left to the King's prerogative. It could only be secured through the political cooperation and consent of peers and burgesses -- property-owners small and large.

This settlement in the distribution of power made for a `mixed' regime -- the humanists' ideal -- that combined the best of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. All three were given...