This news was met with some surprise as Jean has only served a single five-year term out of a possible two. It was widely expected that she’d be asked to continue in her capacity as governor general, as is the established practice, but also considering her unprecedented leniency in granting Harper not one but two prorogations of Parliament in as many years.

Jean came under fire for enabling Harper’s now serial abuse of Parliament but her overall popularity has not eroded. Many Canadians protested the latter suspension of Parliament late last year but the subject of their ire was Harper, not Jean. They may have been displeased with her decision but they did not call for her to resign en masse.

As Harper’s search for a replacement reaches into the coming weeks, Canada’s highest apolitical office is likely to become anything but. Speculation has thus far split between debate over whom Harper might (or should) select, and a broader assessment of the office’s relationship with Canada’s federal political structure.

YOURSELF OR SOMEONE LIKE YOU

The same article from the Star offered a short list of candidates, as vetted by a recent poll, including man-in-motion Rick Hansen, “…John de Chastelain, a former chief of defence staff and ambassador to the United States…and…national Inuit leader Mary Simon…” in descending order of apparent popularity.

Hansen’s rejection of the position (the otherwise misplaced focus of the article) shifted attention to the other candidates, which has since dimmed along with the initial hype.

A second Star article from the same day quoted a source saying that Harper considers the office of governor general to be an “end-of-career posting” which could bode well for either de Chastelain or Simon (in that order), depending on your perspective. However, both the article and source acknowledge that even this is entirely speculative.

So, the short answer is that not even the leading candidates are leading candidates. Harper’s supposed criteria could just as easily apply to any of the three would-be appointees suggested in the poll as it could, say, Preston Manning.

John Ibbitson’s column from last week exploits the apparent failure of the rumour mill to great effect by goading readers into building their own candidate based on language, clothing, geography, gender/ethnicity, ideology, and competence.

Ibbitson’s approach is spirited but flawed. He arrives at the curious suggestion that “[a] really exotic pick this time would be a WASP male” based on the fact that “[t]here hasn’t been one since Roland Michener in the 1970s.” While this might be true in one sense it hardly resonates with the rapidly evolving nature of Canadian society, nor the theme of his recent book, The Polite Revolution (2005) which opens by observing “…that nearly one Canadian in five arrived here from somewhere else…”.

Let’s hope he’s just being flippant and grant him the benefit of the doubt.

Besides, he is right to assert that the next governor general should be bilingual. Jean certainly met that criteria, not to mention the rest of Ibbitson’s list. In fact, given the current lack of candidates to thus far, Jean may very well be at the top of the list to replace herself.

This is part of what makes Harper’s decision to replace her so confusing.

Lawrence Martin’s column from last week, which makes the case for a first peoples’ candidate, is the most insightful argument tabled to date and an interesting counter to Ibbitson’s more fragmented view.

Martin specifically focuses on Simon but his broader point is this: “It’s high time — after 143 years! — that a representative of the first peoples was given the job.” And it’s a difficult point to dismiss. Simon is a possible candidate, yes; but there are others. Canada certainly does not suffer from a lack of “first peoples” leadership, regardless of how little national attention they receive.

JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY IT

Last Thursday the Globe and Mail published an editorial calling on Harper to consult with Canadians on his choice for the next governor general. Specifically, it suggested that he “…establish an apolitical advisory committee representative of Canadian society, a consultative body that would diminish the temptation of partisanship and politically correct gestures” but concluded that he will likely “go it alone” instead.

But what’s more “representative of Canadian society” than Canadian society itself?

Surely not some unelected “apolitical advisory committee” — that’s not only more government by definition but also fundamentally illegitimate.

Surely not some US-style parliamentary committee either, where MPs grill possible appointees and the sum total of all their sins and transgressions — although, I will grant that an open vote in the House of Commons would be legitimate, by contrast, due to the body’s representational nature.

And surely not the current prime minister who is under the populist impression that he is, himself, head of state — or, at least, that Canadians specifically elect a prime minister — and who also just filled a number of Senate vacancies with partisan hacks after saying he wouldn’t.

So, why not just elect the governor general?

That is basically the editorial’s underlying suggestion.

Theoretically, we could do this without upending the political or legal framework of the country. Hell, we could even do it without ditching our actual head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. That is, at least, C.E.S. Frank’s argument in an essay from Friday’s Globe.

Franks does not go as far to suggest that we should elect the governor general; however, he does put forward a persuasive case for why we might, at least, close the gap on the political legitimacy of the office by moving it beyond its colonial roots.

Traditionally, feuds between belligerent, self-important prime ministers and governors general have resulted in a crisis in legitimacy for the latter office, with the former office appealing directly to voters. An elected governor general could fulfill their obligations without fear of reprisal against the office itself.

Protecting the office is particularly important in keeping the governor general’s powers from being appropriated or tread on by belligerent, self-important prime ministers and their burgeoning troupe of unelected staff and consultants.

And it wouldn’t limit the power of the House of Commons either since the prime minister is still head of government. Something an elected Senate (part of the same chamber), by contrast, would most certainly do.

This isn’t a call for a republic but Canadians shouldn’t be afraid of rolling out some of the loopholes in the present federal political system, particularly when they’re a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

NOTE

+ For some reason, the Canadian press hyphenates “governor-general” while the office of the governor general and most other Commonwealth nations do not. I’ve taken sides and I think you should, too.