Can we please give the Michelle Jean story a rest already? I wasn't even on the same continent when this whole controversy over the credentials our next Governor General erupted, and I'm already sick of it.

Don't get me wrong, I am always happy to see the Governor General- any Governor General- come under fire. Canada is long overdue for a serious discussion about the office of our nation's head of state, and every time the Governor General of the day stumbles into some controversy I always wait in anticipation, eagerly hoping that the latest scandal will be enough to finally trigger that national debate. But my waiting is always in vain, and the day never comes. No matter how badly a Governor General manages to embarrass herself, her office, or the nation, few Canadians ever seem to get too riled up about it, and fewer still use the opportunity as a chance for a more sophisticated political discussion.

The ongoing scandals surrounding Ms. Jean are simply the latest episode of this tired cycle. It is by now quite obvious that the former CBC host was nominated by the Prime Minister mainly because of her race, appearance, and gender, at the expense of any more substantive qualifications. She also has a rather open history of supporting the separatist cause in Quebec; at least on an emotional level, if not on a partisan one.

The gist of ensuing outrage, to summarize basically ever critic who has voiced an opinion to date, is that Ms. Jean was simply a bad choice for the job. The Governor Generalship of Canada should demand a higher caliber of occupant than a largely unknown, second-rate CBC personality with history of supporting dubious political causes, they argued. The National Post's resident monarchist Andrew Coyne went even further, evoking the most flowery of language to justify his outrage. "This is supposed to be the position of supreme honor and prestige in the country," he wrote of the Governor General's office, arguing that the position "should be filled by titans, revered national icons, whose love of country is reflected in the love their country has for them." Many Canadian pundits apparently expect that only the highest possible caliber of man be permitted to serve as our nation's ceremonial Head of State. They don't take kindly to second-raters storming in.

In another column Coyne rattled off the names and careers of some of the ceremonial Heads of State in other nations, presumably in an attempt to create feelings of insecurity and bitterness at the comparatively unimpressive Michelle Jean. The figurehead President of Germany is the former head of the International Monetary Fund, he noted, and the current Governor General of New Zealand is an ex-justice of the Supreme Court. But Coyne missed the larger point. On paper, these leaders' credentials may look impressive, but when you actually talk to the citizens of their countries most will remain unmoved. No matter what nation of this world you are in, if the King, Governor, or President of that country is a symbolic figurehead who does little more than cut the ribbon at the new Wal-Mart, he'll inevitably be the subject of much grumbling about the useless yet expensive nature of his office. The problem with Ms. Jean is not that she is unqualified, it is that her useless and lavishly taxpayer funded position exists at all.

The man on the street, unlike political science majors and other obsessive apologists of monarchs and figureheads, does not expect his government to employ someone to "embody the nation" in a ceremonial capacity. Regardless of which powerless guy in a uniform the textbooks say the actual head of state is, the politician who actually runs the country is the man or woman who will always be considered the true head of the nation.

By the time we reach adulthood most of us have grown to accept the simple fact that in human society complete unanimity of opinion is almost always impossible to achive. When four people can't even agree what they want to eat on a pizza, it seems a bit odd to expect an entire nation to give its unanimous approval to a single Governor General. How can any one Prime Minister assume he has the ability to choose a man or woman to embody the entire Canadian nation, and then assume his choice will be accepted and embraced by all citizens of this country regardless of politics, opinion, race, creed, color, gender, religion, and geography? The short answer is he can't, and we should probably tell him to stop trying.

There is a real alternative to this lunacy, and it's the presidential model of governance. President George W. Bush is the head of the United States of America, and as such is both the symbolic and functional leader of his country. He is hardly a unanimously loved man, but few expect him to be. He is a partisan, elected politician, with a clearly defined job to do. Someday he'll be gone and some other partisan politician will take his place. Democracies are by definition societies that feature governments defined by argument and disagreement. That the head of the state should be just as political, partisan, and divisive as every other official in the nation seems only logical.

The choice is clear. Canada can either grow up and become a republic, with the Prime Minister (or an elected President) as head of state, or we can continue to live in a fairy tale world with Queens and viceroys. We can either live in a fully democratic country and accept the fact that our leaders will not always be loved by all people all of the time, or we can continue to cling to the decidedly anti-democratic, monarchist fantasy that our society must be presided over by some superhuman "titan" to unite the unruly masses. Just don't act surprised when a washed-up CBC host can't do the job.