On June 24, 1793, the French Convention adopted an eminently progressive and democratic Constitution. Two hundred and thirty years later, what remains of this text, never really applied? In this period of crisis of our institutions and distrust of governments, can it serve to rethink the link between the people and their representatives?
Following the convocation of the States General of 1789, then the proclamation of the National Assembly, the latter resulted in September 1791 in a constitutional monarchy. The first Constitution of France recognizes equality in rights, individual freedoms and the right to property. The text also establishes the separation of powers, although the monarch (executive power) can short-circuit, thanks to a suspensive veto, the action of the legislative power. This regime was quickly disavowed by the people, who overthrew the monarchy on August 10, 1792. The Republic was proclaimed in the fall.
In these circumstances, the Convention must write a new Constitution in accordance with the republican regime that the nation has just given itself. The “most democratic” Constitution in the country’s history was adopted on June 24, 1793 and confirmed by a referendum – a first in France. The text is based on an updated Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which specifies that “all men are equal by nature and before the law” (art. 3). More innovative, article 21 affirms: “Public assistance is a sacred debt. Society owes subsistence to unhappy citizens, either by providing them with work, or by assuring the means of existence to those who are unable to work. The State has the duty to “put education within the reach of all citizens” (art. 23).
Furthermore, it is proclaimed that “sovereignty resides in the people” (art. 25) and that “a people always has the right to review, reform and change its Constitution” (art. 28). Several measures are planned to avoid oppression: accountability of people’s representatives (art. 31), right to resist oppression (art. 33) and right to insurrection if necessary (art. 35). The whole of the Constitution is based on these principles, which it underpins. A strict separation of powers is established, with a preponderance of the legislative power elected by the people to make the laws. The aforementioned rights seem natural enough and yet not all of them are enshrined in our constitutions, let alone consistently enforced. This situation partly sheds light on the current democratic deficit, which involves its share of mistrust.
Canadian democratic deficit
For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is enshrined in the 1982 Constitution and to which all laws proclaimed in Canada must comply a priori, does not recognize the equality in kind of individuals, but only the equality in front of the law. More seriously, no economic equality (even relative) nor any public assistance to the poor is provided for in this Charter. How then can we think of a real exercise, for all and for all, of fundamental freedoms and democratic rights?
By guaranteeing neither equality in dignity (the term does not appear in the Charter), nor a vital economic minimum for citizens, nor the material conditions for the exercise of other rights, the Canadian Fundamental Law is at odds with wrong with democratic ethics. From this point of view, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms does better, by stipulating that “every person in need has the right, for himself and his family, to measures of financial assistance and to social measures (art. 45).
The right to education is certainly stated, but with a three-speed school, as is the case in Quebec, it is clear that we do not guarantee the best conditions for thinking and acting in our society. Economic inequalities and cultural inequalities overlap and maintain the democratic deficit. In addition, various elements compromise our institutions, including the monarchical base of our system which grants supreme power to an unelected monarch, without accountability and in an irrevocable way. This fundamentally anti-popular system discredits our democracy; we must not overlook its significance in distrust of the Canadian government. Why would the people trust a system in which they do not hold sovereignty?
The difficulties in amending the Constitution also harm Canadian democratic life, especially since the population cannot play a direct role in it and an amendment concerning the Canadian monarchy would have to be submitted to the “unanimity formula” . Obviously, the right to resist oppression, or even the right to insurrection, is not provided for in our laws, blocking the action of the people who would like to change their regime. Finally, the weak separation of powers in Canada diminishes citizens’ confidence in its government.
The fact that the majority of the legislative power forms the de facto executive power, and that the latter appoints the judicial power (in the person of the judges of the Supreme Court) is a danger for the democratic functioning of our society and a reason to turn away institutions deemed insufficiently balanced.
The Constitution of 1793 was certainly imperfect and it would be naïve to believe that it could solve all our democratic problems. However, this document, particularly its preamble, was forged in a context of direct intervention by the people in public affairs and intense democratism. It sets out many rights that could guarantee a better democracy and restore the bond of trust between the people and their institutions.
The abolition of the monarchy, at least relative economic equality, true universal education, institutions based on popular sovereignty, participatory democracy and true separation of powers are all solutions to current problems. It remains to wonder who refuses such progress, and why.