Abolish the monarchy | The Press

Since the death of Elizabeth II, much emphasis has been placed on the personal qualities of the sovereign. The exceptional longevity of her reign, her singular humor, the fact above all that she was one of the rare women admitted into circles of power, all of this undoubtedly deserved to be saluted.

But the arrival on the throne of his heir Charles III brings us back to the bare reality: it is not the person of the king (or queen) that counts, but the institution that it represents. And it turns out that the British monarchy, even if it is far from the time when it dominated the world, continues to claim a right of ownership over vast territories and millions of individuals.

Here in Canada, every individual remains a loyal subject of Her Majesty, whether they like it or not – because it is impossible to apostatize, as is the case with religion.

As head of state, the monarch maintains his country-branches in a situation of dependence, by providing at a discount symbols that they are required to adopt. References to the crown are not only present in currency, stamps and toponymy: even today, newly elected MPs must take an oath to the King of England, land in the public domain is Crown land , the lawyers representing the interests of the State are Crown attorneys, the academy bringing together the best researchers and artists is called the Royal Society of Canada, and so on. For antiques enthusiasts, all this protocol may have a charm.

But like the prayer said at the start of elected meetings and the crucifixes hung in assemblies, the time has come to part ways with the monarchy and bring it where it belongs: in history books and museums. .

Needless to recall here the long list of injustices of which the British monarchy has been guilty over the centuries. The violence of colonialism and imperialism, with its share of disastrous derivatives (despotism, racism, slavery), is well documented. I will stick to a single observation that does not concern the past, but the present: the monarchy perpetuates a belief that has become inadmissible in our time, according to which there are individuals who are inherently superior to others.

This institution unquestionably embodies the most acute form of privilege: by his mere birth, a man is called not to be part of society, but to overlook and govern it. The consecration of such an arbitrary principle in a democratic state is the strictest aberration.

In Canada, Quebecers remain, by far, the most favorable to the breaking of the monarchical link (between 70% and 75%, according to the polls). This is of course due to the particular history of this “conquered” people and the conflictual relationship it maintained with the representatives of British power. Like other peoples in the world, it has long suffered from the ideology of Anglo-Saxon superiority (orangism) which justified the adoption of discriminatory policies and contributed to its inferiority. This is one of the reasons why many Quebecers want to break with Canada, this “Dominion” which they consider to be the manifestation of a power foreign to their interests.

In New Zealand and Australia, where a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy ended in a narrow victory of No in 1999, the harshest criticism today comes from the indigenous populations. This is how the New Zealand Maori Party demands a “divorce” from the British crown, because of the persecutions suffered and the non-respect of the treaties signed during the last two centuries.¹. In the Caribbean, the project of rupture receives highly favorable support, while many demand that the British crown offer reparations for past violence. Last year, Barbados chose to abolish the constitutional monarchy to found a republic. Six other countries in this region, including Jamaica and the Bahamas, intend to do the same soon².

Like Scotland and England, English Canada also saw the popularity of the monarchy wane. According to a recent poll, two-thirds of Canadians believe the royal family should have no formal role in their society³. Unsurprisingly, the young populations and those of immigrant origin are more favorable than the others to the abolition of the monarchical link. The reason is simple: many immigrants have fled authoritarian or monarchical regimes (and sometimes both), or come from former colonies that have freed themselves from British tutelage. So there is something absurd in requiring these new arrivals to swear loyalty to a monarch who has represented a symbol of oppression for their country of origin.

We can consider this debate useless, as the CAQ did recently by refusing to eliminate the post of lieutenant-governor, a process deemed too “complex and cumbersome” by the Minister responsible for Canadian Relations. And yet, the abolition of the monarchical link, and with it all the outmoded oaths and symbols attached to it, is one of those gestures that have the power to make political institutions a little more in line with the values ​​of equality that are supposed to defend.