Divorce symbolic power from personality cult

The royals are back in Canada, and once again the question of their “relevance” comes to the fore.

In an age where everyone from the Pope to Justin Trudeau to Justin Bieber are seen in terms of their level of celebrity status, it is hard to have a meaningful conversation on the subject.

Perhaps we need to divorce the Crown as symbol from the personality cult of the head upon which it rests. It might be worthwhile to compare the symbol of the Crown as a representation of national sovereignty with that of a flag, and ask: Is it better to have a hereditary or an elected head of the “family”?

On the pro side, a hereditary leader provides us with stability of succession. On the con side, hereditary power doesn’t seem very democratic.

On the pro side of an elected “first family,” there is the democratic principle of participating in the raising of the chief on his or her shield, even if the pre-selection of possible leaders has been determined in political party backrooms. On the con side, the election of a leader must take place at regular intervals or the institution loses its democratic legitimacy, so there is almost a perpetual search for a new and better chief.

But perhaps that is all just window dressing. The real question is how much real power devolves from the symbol — crown or flag — on whose head it rests or on whose shoulders it is cloaked. Because symbols have objective realities and consequences, they need to be carefully studied and clearly separated from the frivolity of meme and celebrity. Richard Mackenzie Saanich