O O Ø O O O O
My Republic
The Rt. Hon. Senator Catalyst
c/o The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
Your honour:
In your correspondence dated July 26, 2006, as response to my article In Defence of Separatism, you succinctly put forward the argument that “political elite is politcal elite, no matter the size of the country.”
I couldn’t possible agree more. Klein, Harper, Martin and Chretien are just the latest in a seemingly endless parade of Canadian politicians who are more interested in rewarding their political friends and shoring up their bases of power than in achieving any sort of just, constitutional governance. My grievances with them apply across the political spectrum, and I hope this is also true for you, Senator.
The solution to this common problem is not to replace the current elite with a different elite—as the replacements will in turn abuse their power in new, courageous and unfortunate ways—but to constrain the abilities of those in government from affecting our lives.
This is why I always propose that any notional new nation ought to be a republic.
What makes a republic better than a plain vanilla democracy? Simply, a republic is a government of laws, not people. Rather than depending on the decency of those in power, citizens of a republic depend on a constitution to legally restrict politicians from interfering in different aspects of their lives.
For the requisite sound bite, I look to one of my favourite architects:
In questions of power…let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
—Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
The first ten amendments to the American constitution are known collectively as the Bill of Rights, and they comprise an exceedingly clever bit of writing. What is not often reflected upon however, is that the Bill of Rights does not itemize what Americans can do, but what their federal government cannot. Most famously, the first amendment starts with the words “Congress shall make no law…” and is followed by a list of constraints. The tenth amendment then sums up the rest with “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
For a hundred years this document protected Americans from the tentacles of their government. Eventually it succumbed to the machinations of an uninterrupted and continuing series of terrible presidents. The American constitution’s flaw is that it has no built-in mechanism to defend itself against transgressors. There are no consequences for its violation.
Knowing this, sharp would-be modern day founding fathers should add a penalty or two. Fines, then prison sentences, should follow any time a notional supreme court deems a law to be unconstitutional.
Further to the point of my original article, Senator, this can be accomplished at any aggregate scale, but I see improved chances of achieving it in Alberta, rather than in Canada. Perhaps you can prove me wrong. I see nothing wrong with four or five nation states north of the 49th parallel, happily coexisting in trade and exquisite international hockey tournaments, but I also see nothing wrong with one renewed Canadian republic, its redrafted constitution protecting the liberties of all its regions.
I will finish this, my second defence of the idea of Alberta Republicanism, with another quote, this time not from an architect, but from a reputed hewer of wood.
Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
—George Washington
Government is force, and its purpose must be questioned continually. A republic, at its heart, eschews force as an answer.
Evan Spence
August 8, 2006
OOØOOOODCCLXXVI
August 9th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
“Alberta Republicanism” and “land locked” just don’t seem to go very well together. I think you’d have to invade BC - because invading SK probably won’t help a whole lot - to ensure you don’t get zinged by your friendly neighbourhood nation states and/or gorilla.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Switzerland is land locked. What works for them works for me.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:33 am
All I’m saying is the primary export of the new republic would have to go through someone else’s territory to get to the market. I’m not sure Switzerland’s a good model, unless the plan is to change to a services economy.
August 11th, 2006 at 8:07 am
We mustn’t assume that because the borders are new, they must be closed.
In fact, our intraprovincial borders have always been greater barriers to trade than international borders. Ask Big Rock brewery.