Governor General Michaëlle Jean, Canada’s head of state, inspects the honour guard during Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on July 1, 2009.
CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS

***
Peter H. Russell - It has been argued that Canada will only grow up when it gets rid of the monarchy. I would turn his edict around: accepting the existing constitutional arrangements with respect to our head of state is a mark of growing up.
Even if you believe, as I do not, that a non-monarchical republican head of state would serve Canada better, think of the constitutional turmoil the country would have to go through to make this change.
Any change in the office of the Queen, the governor general and the lieutenant governor of a province requires consent of Canada's 10 provinces and the federal Parliament. Consider the political struggle involved in getting such a constitutional consensus.
If previous efforts to amend our Constitution have taught us anything, it is that once the constitutional amendment process is opened, no one can contain the agenda. Pushers of any number of reforms will scream for a place on the agenda. Not the least of these would be nationalist Quebecers keen to get more power for la belle province.
Opening up the constitutional reform process plunges Canada into a feverish season of constitutional politics in which governments and citizens become absorbed in passionate debate about constitutional niceties. Just what Canada needs as it faces the challenges of economic recovery, reducing carbon emissions and the Afghan war.
If Canada's monarchical head of state were causing serious problems and there was much to be gained by scrapping it, one might argue that Canadians should have the guts to risk a stormy season of constitutional politics. But this is certainly not the case.
Unlike presidential/congressional systems like the U.S., where the president is both head of state and head of government, parliamentary democracies keep separate the positions of head of state and head of government. The head of government is the prime minister, whose licence to govern comes from having the confidence of the elected house of Parliament. The head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, providing a personal and non-political representation of the state to its citizens and to the world.
But the head of state has one important power: to protect the integrity of the parliamentary system. This is true of all parliamentary systems whether they are republican or monarchical. There has to be a person who is not a player in partisan parliamentary politics to ensure that the principles of parliamentary government are observed.
Among other things, this means that the head of state in a parliamentary system must ensure that following an election the government that takes office has the confidence of a majority in parliament; must decide whether an election needs to be called because no political leader can secure majority support in parliament; and, yes, must decide if and when a prime minister's request to prorogue parliament should be accepted.
The functions of parliamentary heads of state are best carried out by a person who is not closely connected to partisan politics. Such an individual is more likely to command the respect of all citizens.
Similarly, on those rare occasions when it is not clear who commands the confidence of Parliament, a person without a partisan profile will have more legitimacy as an umpire of parliamentary politics. On this point, monarchical heads of state have the advantage of being free of partisan colouring. Republican heads of state who are either directly elected or indirectly elected need partisan backing to get elected.
Admittedly, much of this advantage of the monarchical system is lost in Canada when prime ministers recommend partisan colleagues to be appointed governor general and represent her here.
King George VI's 1946 Letters Patent authorized the governor general to exercise all his powers as Canada's head of state without reference back to him, including the powers of summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Parliament of Canada. Since 1952, when Vincent Massey was appointed governor general, a strong convention has been established that a Canadian must hold the office.
So, for all practical purposes and for more than half a century, we have had a Canadian performing the functions of Canada's head of state, and for the most part carrying out those functions very well. This is certainly true of Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean, whose appointments broke with the bad practice of appointing cabinet colleagues of the prime minister.
So grow up Canada.
It would be irresponsible to inflict a constitutional maelstrom on the country in order to fix something that isn't broken.
We should not be afraid of continuing our connection with the British Crown. It is a splendid part of our cultural heritage.
And to those who get a bad case of colonial cringe when Prince Charles sets foot in Canada, my advice is to ignore media hogwash, listen to what the man has to say and learn about the causes he has espoused. I think you will find he measures up well against any parliamentary head of state, especially in those republican parliamentary countries you may wish to admire.
Peter H. Russell is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto and author of the recently published Two Cheers for Minority Government: The Evolution of Canadian Parliamentary Democracy.