Not quite right, the sitting Government went to the Queen's Representative, the Governor-General and requested that the crown dissolve the current Parliament and hold a general election to replace it. We do not live in an absolute Monarchy, but in a Constitutional Monarchy where the rights, powers and responsibilities of the Government and the Monarchy are clearly defined and laid out.spydercanopus wrote:What's the point in voting in a monarchy? The queen will just dissolve parliament as she did the last three of them.
The Monarchy cannot not arbitrarily dissolve Parliament on a whim anymore, the last Monarch who tried that Charles the First triggered the English Civil War and quite literally lost his head over it. After Charles lost the English Civil War and his head, England experimented with being a true Republic, until Cromwell using the New Model Army pulled a coup d'etat, overthrowing what he saw as a corrupt and inept Parliament and established himself as the Lord Protector of England, basically he was a Military Dictator and remained in power till his death.
After Cromwell's death, Parliament invited Charles son who was living in exile back and offered him the thrown. However, before crowning him King, both parties agreed to who had what powers and responsibilities. Parliament retained control of the public purse, budget, the right to make and enact laws, collect taxes and basically govern the nation and later the Empire. And more importantly, declare war and enter into trade and political treaties with foreign powers.
The Crown or Monarch is to be politically neutral and must be seen as not to interfere or influence the political process within Parliament. Nor can the Monarch make or enact laws, but does have the right to send legislation back to Parliament if it seen to be contrary to rights and freedoms of the People of the land. Parliament is then required to revisit and amend their legislation so that it falls within the Constitution. The courts and Senate in Canada or House of Lords in the UK also have this right and responsibility.
One of the most important aspects of the divisions of power between the Monarch and Parliament is the control of the Army/Military. Having seen how both the Monarch and Cromwell used the Army in the past to do as they wished, two things were decided. One, England would never again have a large standing Army (which explains why Canada also traditionally has a small standing military) and two, command of the Army would be the exclusive domain of the Monarch, there by removing the threat of ever again having a Military Dictatorship imposed on the people of the UK.
However, even though the Monarch commands the military, the Monarch of today cannot use it to declare war on others without the expressed support of Parliament. Only Parliament can make formal declarations of war. But here is the neat thing, Parliament must go to the Monarch and request the use of her troops.
So lets say a PM gets insulted by the leader of Buggabugga, a small nation in the middle of nowhere and bullies Parliament into declaring war just because his feelings were hurt. The Monarch has the right to tell the Army to stand down and not invade or fight. Also, since the Monarch has control of the Army, Parliament cannot use it as an instrument of repression against the people of the nation. In order to mobilize the military to restore public order, Parliament needs the okay from the Monarch or in Canada's case, the Governor-General. By the same token, the Monarch cannot use the Military to go to war on a whim. The Monarch can request Parliament to declare war and the Parliament has the right to say no.
But the question was about Queen dissolving Parliament. The Monarch does have the right and the responsibility to dissolve Parliament but under strict requirements and guidelines.
Normally Parliament is dissolve when the PM of the sitting Government requests the Crown dissolve it because it is time for a new election or the Government is seeking a new mandate from the electors i.e. you and me. Or if the sitting Government has lost the support of Parliament in a vote of non-confidence. Or as was the case for our latest election, was found to be in contempt of Parliament, a very serious charge.
The crown does have the right and responsibility to dissolve Parliament and oust a sitting Government arbitrarily but only under a set of unique circumstances.
1) The sitting Government is acting in a manner that is traitorous towards the crown
2) The sitting Government is acting in a manner that is un-Constitutional
3) The sitting Government is acting in a Dictatorial manner
4) The sitting Government has lost the support of the general population to the point with open rebellion is possible.
5) Parliament is no longer effective or workable and the sitting Government refuses to step down and hold an election.
If any of these circumstances are meet, the Crown has the right and responsibility to dissolve Parliament and force an election. More importantly, the Crown can order the Military to enforce the dissolvement of Parliament.
Personally I am a Monarchist. That is to say I support the institution of a Constitutional Monarchy such as we have and believe it to superiour to other forms of Democracy including Republics such as the US. Historically, most Republics devolve into Dictatorships or into two or three factions that are at logger heads with each other, think about the Republican and Democrat divide in the US as an example.
With our system, the Head of State, the Monarch and her representative the Governor-General are seen to be non-political and above lowly political rangling. The political process is contained within Parliament and if and when it gets out of hand, we have a means of correcting it, even if it means using the troops to oust the buggers and forcing all Parliamentarians, MP's or MLA's to face and answer to their bosses, us the electors. As we have seen many times in the past, it is fairly easy her in Canada and in the UK to get rid of an unpopular sitting PM, can't say the same about getting rid of an unpopular sitting US President.