Canada’s World
February 8, 2012 | 5 Comments
On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article on the declining influence of the United States Constitution.
The article chronicled how, once upon a time, constitutional designers looked to the United States Constitution as a model for their own. As a citadel of democracy and home to world’s oldest written constitution, the United States was the first point of reference for any draftsperson searching for guidance in the task of writing a constitution for her newly-democratizing state.
Not anymore. Over the last generation, constitutional designers have instead turned to Canada and its celebrated Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is significant because it rebuts the misguided though still persistent view that Canada has very little influence around the world. Canada cannot boast either one of the world’s largest militaries nor an economy that matches the scale of the world’s great financial behemoths. But what Canada does have—and what it has long prided itself on—is its soft power.
Canada’s influence on the constitutional architecture of liberal democracies, both young and old, is a compelling example of Canadian soft power. Building constitutional fraternity is perhaps the most potent way to share Canadian values with a world that dearly needs them.
Tags: Canadian Constitution > Constitutional Design > Constitutions > United States Constitution
Comments
5 Responses to “Canada’s World”
Leave a Reply
February 9th, 2012 @ 1:05 pm
Canada’s Charter is 200 years younger than its American counterpart. So it’s not surprising.
However, the Charter *is not* our constitution. Sure, it is part of our constitution, but I don’t think Egypt is looking to our 1867 Constitution Act for information about how much money their new Senators should have before they can be appointed for life.
[Reply]
Richard Albert Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Oh yes, of course. I take your point, although the Charter is part of the larger Constitution Act of 1982.
[Reply]
February 10th, 2012 @ 2:49 pm
I hope Joe Canadian doesn’t get wind of this. “I believe in the value of a notwithstanding clause…I don’t believe in the right to bear arms…and I think Quebec should be guaranteed three judges. I am Canadian!”
Richard, with respect, I don’t think having a constitution that other countries admire and look up to can be called power, soft or otherwise, in any sense of the word. Apparently our immigration policies are much admired in Sweden these days. That’s nice, but power? What quid pro quo are you hoping for?
The reason I ask is that there are a lot of anti-Cons getting their knickers in a knot these days over Canada’s supposed drop in influence at the UN and in the third world. I don’t really buy it, but isn’t the proper question whether our foreign policy is in our best interest, not whether folks in Central Africa like us under the confused assumption that such has anything to do with our power?
[Reply]
Richard Albert Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Interesting take, Peter. I don’t think we see things that differently.
Like you, I believe that Canada’s foreign policy should serve it’s own interests first and above all. But if Canada’s traditions–constitutional or otherwise–help move other nations along in their long march toward democracy, then that spells victory both for those nations and for Canada.
It is a significant victory for those nations because they become democratic and therefore respectful of human rights. And it is a more subtle victory for Canada, whose own values become vindicated in the course of their adoption elsewhere.
The basic point, from my perspective, is the old familiar phrase: imitation is the highest form of flattery.
[Reply]
February 10th, 2012 @ 4:28 pm
But if Canada’s traditions–constitutional or otherwise–help move other nations along in their long march toward democracy
That is the million dollar issue. It used to be very common for the Chinese to send over delegations to study our multicultural policies. They marveled at our success in integrating so many different peoples and cultures into our system peacefully, and wanted to know how we did it. Then they went home, filed their reports and jailed a bunch of Tibetans.
I’m tickled when others compliment and want to emulate us too, but it is a bit of a timeless Canadian insecurity to worry excessively about what the rest of the world thinks of us and to be hyper-sensitive about any foreign criticism. But maybe that’s where our reputation for “niceness” comes from. There are worse national characteristics, I suppose.
[Reply]