Another proroguish thought
Dec. 5th, 2008 08:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyI'm disappointed that she let Harper suspend Parliament but I'd like to extend a theory that Michaëlle Jean was actually acting in a progressive manner.
See, the idea of a Governor General* is a bit fucked up, even if I generally like Jean, and Adrienne Clarkson. It's basically "yeah, you plebes can elect whomever you like, but inbred overseas royalty still gets the final say, and if you get too rowdy about your democracy, we'll bring the smackdown." Of course in real life it doesn't work that way because obviously people would fucking flip. But the fact is that the institution is still there and the potential remains.
Which means that in a situation like this, she has the unenviable choice of doing whatever the government currently in power wants—as reactionary and boneheaded as it is—or standing up for what's technically right but in doing so setting a bad precedent for future interventions. I mean, we don't want a representative of the monarchy to actually act like a representative of the monarchy, do we?
I haven't thought this out too hard so I welcome different readings of the situation.
Who is going to the rally on Saturday?
* Or at least a Governor General with actual political power; if you need to pay someone to attend arts galas and benefits and give speeches I guess that's okay.
See, the idea of a Governor General* is a bit fucked up, even if I generally like Jean, and Adrienne Clarkson. It's basically "yeah, you plebes can elect whomever you like, but inbred overseas royalty still gets the final say, and if you get too rowdy about your democracy, we'll bring the smackdown." Of course in real life it doesn't work that way because obviously people would fucking flip. But the fact is that the institution is still there and the potential remains.
Which means that in a situation like this, she has the unenviable choice of doing whatever the government currently in power wants—as reactionary and boneheaded as it is—or standing up for what's technically right but in doing so setting a bad precedent for future interventions. I mean, we don't want a representative of the monarchy to actually act like a representative of the monarchy, do we?
I haven't thought this out too hard so I welcome different readings of the situation.
Who is going to the rally on Saturday?
* Or at least a Governor General with actual political power; if you need to pay someone to attend arts galas and benefits and give speeches I guess that's okay.
