A reading of the philosopher- historian R.G. Collingwood would
imply some consistency but is not flattering. He explains in The New Leviathan: “although the word
‘legislation’ is one we owe to the Romans, the Romans did not clearly
distinguish in their own minds between what we call legislation and the
enactment of an executive decree.”[2] This is clearly the problem with the Harper’s
very troubling use of numerous “omnibus bills” (amounting to hundreds of pages
in length each) which mask the executive as the legislative. Another significant historical parallel are
the Enabling Acts, beginning in Weimar Germany in October 1923, which gave
Cabinet the power to “enact such measures as it deems advisable and urgent in
the financial, economic and social spheres.”[3] Does the reasoning not sound familiar? Germany had previously engaged in four years
of trench warfare and was at the time enduring hyper-inflation. In a recent statement the incoming Governor of
the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, described recovery from the 2008-09
financial crises in excessive terms as “post-war reconstruction.” For the “Harper Government” in other words,
history implies a Roman legacy of executive decrees – or war.
Another thing the Romans gave us was the rule of law, which
by inversion meant that everyone is equal before the law.[4] However, this central principle suggests that
Conservative Party thinking is not in agreement with Roman history. In Canada everyone is equal before the law,
except for the “Harper Government” which rules as if there is no reciprocity in
political life, because expanding one’s power is considered more important than
Parliament. A corollary of this is
Harper’s definitive refutation of Friedrich Engels (the close collaborator with
Karl Marx) who famously claimed that “the state is not ‘abolished,’ it withers away.”[5]
Harper’s anti-statism is only party pretension, and we can see that in his current
interference with the CBC, which should be at arm’s length from the government
of the day. In Canada the state shall
not wither away, because the Conservative Party has now become the country’s
ruling class.[6]
The Romans also gave us the secret ballot, and here is James
Harrington on the topic in The
Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), aided by his reading of Cicero: “the tablet or ballot of the people of Rome
(who gave their votes by throwing tablets or little pieces of wood secretly
into urns marked for the negative or affirmative) was a welcome constitution of
the people, as that which, not impairing the assurance of their brows,
increased the freedom of their judgement.”[7] Given the implicit role of some unknown people
in the Conservative Party behind the “robo-call” affair, and given the continuous
brow-beating of negative party advertising, one wonders how “free” the vote is
in Canada. Again, the Conservative Party
does not compare well with this Roman example.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Parliament buildings in
Ottawa are not “Roman,” or “neo-classical” (as in Washington, which definitely
has a more than a touch of Versailles to it); rather, they are neo-Gothic, modelled
after the Houses of Parliament in England, which burned to the ground in 1834,
after standing for 800 years, only to be rebuilt. And keep in mind that the average Gothic
window has only three points to it, likely inspired by St. Augustine’s Holy
Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, a theme that I have
developed elsewhere in this blog. This three-fold
nature is also known as the “Gothic balance”: there is an implicit sense of
mediation, reconciliation and reciprocity – in other words, a notion of “the
middle”.[8] These are not intrinsically Roman values
(despite the moderating influences of Cicero and Horace); they are Medieval ones,
aided as I have said elsewhere by St. Augustine and, of course, Aristotle. By preoccupying themselves with various aspects
of Roman history, the Conservative Party may have missed the boat on essential Canadian
history and culture. In other words, under
Harper there is no sense of “Gothic balance”. This essay is an attempt to
clarify a very un-Canadian problem.
[1] The Globe and Mail, Tuesday June 4, 2013,
p. A11.
[2] R.
G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan, or
Man, Society, Civilization and Barbarism. Revised ed. by David Boucher
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005) p. 217.
[3]
Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure
and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-1944 (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2009),
p. 25.
[4]
Collingwood, The New Leviathan, pp.
329,331.
[5]
Friedrich Engels, Anti-dühring:
Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science, tr. Emile Burns, ed. C.P.
Dutt (New York: International Publishers, nd [Nabu Press, USA, Reprint, 2010]),
p. 315 (Part 3, Chapter 2).
[6]
See R.G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan,
p. 277.
[7] James
Harrington, “Oceana” in Ideal Commonwealths,
Intro. Henry Morley (New York: The Colonial Press, 1901), p. 205. Harrington first published The Commonwealth of Oceana in 1656.
[8]
For “Gothic balance” see Harrington in Ibid.,
pp. 216 or 217.
