Political Though, Hobbes & Locke
Two philosophers, both influenced by these events would write down their observations on the necessity of crown and government, along with the need of the individual. These being Thomas Hobbes in his work, The Leviathan and John Locke through his own many works. while both discuss with the concept of English events in mind, their words brought great influence into the Canadan sphere of thinking, which still resonates today. While having very opposing opinions, the do agree on basic needs of people, like to have a governing body representing their interests, but agree on little else. Like all politics, two divided opinions make for great debate, and the two philosophers offer a great example of two sides of government.
Thomas Hobbes, having lived through the events of the English Civil Wars, Pride's Purge, the execution of Charles and the Cromwellian government would give a more cynical view. He would believe in the head of state, and that for anything to work, there must be an undivided government. In a sense, a house divided would surely split, much like the Royalists and Parliamentarians. At the top of this there is the need for one sole individual to take control of the system, unlike the royalists, he believed it did no need to be the King himself. Oliver Cromwell would reject crowning, and Hobbes would see this as fine, so long as Cromwell was the head of government, and maintained an iron fist. In his book the Leviathan the argument is that Crown is only a mere representation, used by government to help control its people. This government could act at a moments notice, and control the individuals who would normally act out against it, whether it be good for them or not. While it may seem like Canadian history is directly opposing his argument, there was a significant time when Canada was controlled by such government.
During WWII under William Lyon Mackenzie King the Liberal party would gain a majority government, and enact the National Resources Mobilization Act. Under this the undivided parliament had sole control over the nations resources, which would include its citizens. Mackenzie King would be Hobbes' Leviathan, even if he was to later lose majority for a short time Canada would live under this ideology. In other manners, Canada still exemplifies this thinking, still holding its crown as a power source. David E. Smith, an American historian would study the influence of crown. Like Hobbes, Smith saw the Crown as the symbol of Canadian power, like Hobbes would view Cromwell as Englands head.
Unlike Hobbes, John Locke was not to write until after the Civil War had ended, he would also share a drastically different view, one which might hold more relevance to Canadians today. To Locke the individual was paramount, and their interests, if respected where no cause of war, instead a body of individuals makes for more agreeable terms then one dictator. In his view humans did not need a head, and each individual was tolerable, and acted with reason, and as such had a level of self governance. Locke can be clearly seen through his ties to modern Canadian political thought. As such, his views would continue through liberal thinking (not to be confused with the Canadian Liberal party). However, while MacKenzie King was the Leviathan of Hobbes, he shared liberal thought of Locke, who would give more power to provinces prior to mobilization, as well as give better care to his people.
As such, one of Canada's most influential Prime Ministers would embodies two spheres of thought from English Civil War inspired philosophers. While each Prime Minister shares their own uses of these philosophies, they do not always straddle the line so closely.
A online version of the Leviathan can be found here:
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf
Sources: