Nation‐building and Canada's national symbolic order, 1993–2015

Abstract

This article examines the symbolic construction of Canadian national identity by the 1993-2006 Liberal governments and the 2006-2015 Conservative governments.To do so, it employs the concept of a 'national symbolic order', which refers to the complex set of public symbols that invoke, transport, and define claims to a shared national identity. Within Canada's national symbolic order, we focus on the state's use of national symbols across two domains: Speeches from the Throne and banknotes. Our analysis shows that Canada's recent Conservative government has used both of these domains to reshape Canadian national identity in ways that accord with neo-conservative values and ideology, and that it has done so in a coherent, consistent, and comprehensive fashion. This analysis highlights the symbolic strategies employed by state actors in linking particular ideologies to their nation-building projects; these strategies span multiple political and policy spaces.

Do governments keep their promises? An analysis of speeches from the throne

“…In many countries, the governing party announces its agenda in the legislature, either through a speech from the throne such as in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, or through a state of the union/national address like those seen in the United States and the Philippines. Sometimes, a government may deliver multiple addresses or speeches from the throne within a single term of office as a means of indicating its intent to pursue a brand new set of priorities and policies (Flynn, 2011; Nieguth & Raney, 2017).…”

“…Speeches from the throne provide a unique context for investigating a variety of structural constraints on promise fulfillment. Whereas party manifestos are generally more aspirational in nature and designed to win votes across a broad spectrum of voters, speeches from the throne are focused more on the ideological and true policy priorities of the winning party and on what it believes the government can and should do while in office (Bara, 2005, p. 587; Nieguth & Raney, 2017; Somer‐Topcu, 2014). These differences mean that throne speeches, potentially, provide a better means of isolating the effects of different kinds of structural constraints, such as institutional and economic contexts, on promise fulfillment.…”