ext_6402 ([identity profile] morgan-dhu.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] morgan_dhu 2005-02-01 10:25 pm (UTC)

Re: C eh N eh D eh

The King-Byng affair (the King involved was Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie KIng; Viscount Byng was the G-G) is sometimes seen as one of the defining moments in Canada's assumption of political independence from Great Britain. I've taken a brief summary of the events from thecanadainencyclopedia.com


The King-Byng Affair was a political crisis in 1926 involving Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Governor General Viscount Byng.

In an election in 1925, King's Liberal government won fewer seats than the Conservatives, but it was able to continue in power with the support of other parties. On June 25, 1926, King's government was about to be condemned for corrupt practices by a vote in Parliament. He asked the governor general to dissolve Parliament before that vote could be taken so that another election could take place. Viscount Byng refused, believing that the Conservatives should have a chance to govern. King angrily resigned and Conservative leader Arthur Meighen took over as prime minister. A few days later, Meighen's government was accidentally defeated in a vote, and Governor General Byng dissolved Parliament.

In the ensuing election, in which Byng's actions were an important issue, King returned to power with a majority of seats in Parliament.


Even at that time, the trend was for the G-G's role to be seen as primarily ceremonial, or at best consultative. Byng's actions were seen as going against the instructions of the elected head of government, and were roundly criticised. Since then, the G-G's role has become more and more ceremonial/surface diplomatic - very much like that of the royal family in Britain. Meet and greet, look pretty and open Parliament. G-G's may have personal causes that they support and encourage, but they don't comment personally on political matters, except in the most general of terms, and they do what the PM tells them to do in those areas where they technically have authority.

This leads many people to believe that the position is pointless. Myself, I think we need a separate head of state to do all the ceremonial stuff, because it dilutes the public presence of the PM, making him or her just another politician, albeit the most powerful one in the country - and gives the PM more time to do his/her job of governemng, without having to open supermarkets.


Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org