What Canada can learn from Russia (of the 17th century)

Thomas Klassen is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at York University, Toronto.

The ruler of a large northern country faces a series of crises as he assumes office. The economy has stalled, there is inadequate domestic manufacturing and some subnational regions demand independence. There is the danger the country may fall to its powerful and ambitious neighbours, having failed to adapt to a rapidly changing economic and political environment.

Sound familiar? It’s not Canada today, but Russia just over three centuries ago when Peter the Great started his reign.

Some of his solutions to the problems faced then sound familiar today: expand local manufacturing, strengthen the armed forces, search for new markets and trading partners, make new friends and allies, invest in new technology.

The Age of Enlightenment was under way in Europe with major scientific advances being made that would soon power the Industrial Revolution. The Russian emperor recognized that the existing Russian values, which stressed tradition, conservatism and heredity no longer fit the emerging economic and political realities. His overriding ambition was to remake the Russian economy and diplomatic relationships, and even the Russian people themselves.

Prime Minister Mark Carney follows some of the same playbook. He says that the comfortable niche that Canada has carved out beside the United States is no longer safe and for Canada to succeed and prosper, its people and institutions need to shed some long-held beliefs and attitudes. Parliament has amended laws to allow for quick approval of national building projects, while military hardware is being acquired at breakneck speed.

How successful was Peter in his push for progress and reform? As an autocrat he did not have to be (much) concerned about elections and opposition parties, and he was in power for 40 years. His economic policies did expand the manufacturing sector, especially for warfare that fuelled a modernized army. Increased taxation provided funds for a variety of projects, including building a new capital, St. Petersburg, and for technical schools.

Peter died while in office, and some of what he did was reversed and other elements abandoned. However, the direction he set, and his objective to make Russia equal – in its military prowess, political influence and cultural splendour – to the other major European empires was largely achieved by those who followed him. That Russia has played a major role in world history in the past three centuries is a testament to his success.

In contemporary Canada, the electoral process and its necessary compromises will stall some of Mr. Carney’s reforms, and some time in the next three years a federal election will be held. Following Peter’s example, Mr. Carney should remain laser focused on reform, regardless of how long his tenure lasts and what other priorities emerge.

But Mr. Carney’s most powerful tools to alter Canada’s future might not even be economic or diplomatic – they would be symbolic.

In Russia, most famously, the emperor ordered all men to shave their beards, which for centuries had been a defining feature of being a Russian man. This edict was not designed to increase productivity or enhance trade but rather – in a striking fashion – to demonstrate that a new era had dawned and that old attitudes and practices were obsolete.

The beard-shaving edict of Peter the Great shocked Russians like no other reform. It unambiguously communicated to every citizen every day that old ways of thinking and acting, beginning with each morning’s bathroom ritual, were no longer acceptable.

The power of symbols, and symbolic gestures, is well understood by another contemporary ruler in pursuing his trade and military objectives: U.S. President Donald Trump. To date he has renamed Lake Ontario, and the Gulf of Mexico, while referring to Canadian prime ministers as governors.

The Prime Minister would do well to further hone and deploy the symbolic tools available to him in setting Canada on a new economic and political path.

For example, an idea I’ve had, and heard from others over the years, is the creation of a prize or prizes – the Canada Prize – along the lines of the Nobel Prizes – administered and presented in Canada. There will be some small cost, but the recognition and prestige for the country could be huge.

In Canadian politics, reforming the Senate is a long-standing topic of debate, as it has the same powers as the House of Commons, but its members are appointed and not elected. Could this be tackled with the aim to make the chamber play a central role in advancing and protecting Canada’s culture, heritage, values and symbols?

Canadian provinces, following the example of Newfoundland and Labrador, could also set their time zones at the half-hour to differentiate Canada from its southern neighbour.

Mr. Carney has already used his public pronouncements, especially his rupture in the world order speech at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January to set Canada on a new path. The speech has made the international community pay more attention to Canada and has made him one of the most respected world leaders.

He also had King Charles read the Speech from the Throne last year. Again, this is symbolism but does make clear that Canada’s government operates in a different way from that of the United States and has unique historical roots. There is also Mr. Carney’s move to make the federal government use British English.

Mr. Carney’s efforts to seek a vaguely defined associate membership in the European Union have ambitious objectives. There is little cost to such membership but it symbolically places Canada in a different geopolitical orbit.

Various European states, including heavyweights such as Germany, object to that label, and the EU dropped the idea last month. But European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen continued to use that term. So did Mr. Carney. They should press on even if “associate membership” never makes it into any formal paperwork.

Who cares if the EU does not use it? Associate membership having no legal meaning is in fact advantageous. It means there’s nothing stopping us from speaking it into existence.

Evoking strong emotional responses from citizens across the land is not something prime ministers are usually known for. However, as Peter has demonstrated when dramatic changes to the national economy are necessary, symbolic acts might be the most effective.

Prosperity’s Path