The author is a professor of literature in Montreal, editor-in-chief of the journal Argument and essayist. He notably published These words that think for us (Liber, 2017) and The prose of Alain Grandbois, or reading and rereading The Travels of Marco Polo (Note bene, 2019).
Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s stunt, followed on Wednesday by Québec solidaire, has the merit of making known the incongruity of the procedure for taking office for Quebec members: I mean, of course, the two oaths that those -these must lend, the first by which they swear to “bear true allegiance to His Majesty” the King (or Queen) of England; and the second where they promise to be loyal to the people of Quebec. The leader of the Parti Québécois is absolutely right to point out that this places each of them in a kind of conflict of interest. It is indeed unlikely that the interests of the people of Quebec coincide with those of King Charles III.
More fundamentally, these two oaths are perfectly contradictory. The procedure enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1867 states that Canada is a monarchy, in which sovereignty belongs, by definition, to the monarch; the oath added to the rules of the National Assembly in 1982 seems on the contrary to recognize that sovereignty belongs to the people of Quebec, and therefore that Quebec is a democracy.
There are many who consider the debates on this question sterile by asserting that Canada is indeed a democracy, since we have rights recognized by a charter. But this remark reveals a confusion, which is maintained by liberal political philosophy, between “state of law” and “democracy”. The two do not, however, merge.
A non-democratic political system can very well protect the rights of its citizens: this was the case, for example, of the Roman Empire, which, at least under the most legalistic emperors, guaranteed its citizens a certain number of rights, including legal protection against the arbitrariness of judges; this was also the case with the English constitutional monarchy of the 17e and XVIIIe centuries, which had very little to do with a democratic regime, but which assured the subjects of the monarch, because of thehabeas corpus and the Tolerance Act of 1688, certain legal and religious rights.
As a general rule, a democratic state also protects the rights of its citizens, but this is not what defines it primarily. What defines democracy as a political regime is that power (kratos) there belongs to the people (demos). It is therefore to him that elected officials must ultimately be accountable. It is therefore to this same people that they are also supposed to take the oath, rather than to a sovereign, whether foreign or not.
The decision of the PQ and QS to refuse to take the oath of allegiance to the British sovereign therefore brings down the masks. It brings to light the monarchical nature of Canada, a fundamental characteristic of a political system that would be difficult to ignore, but which is acted as if it did not exist and had no consequences.
Because it must be recognized, in federal and provincial politics, the King of Canada has everything of a somewhat scandalous old uncle who is invited to family reunions out of politeness. He appears in group photos; we salute him on entering; sometimes it even monopolizes the attention; but everyone else pretends to ignore the exact ties he has with the rest of the family.
This is the reason why this refusal to take the oath will embarrass the premiers of Quebec and of Canada. It is hard to imagine François Legault lecturing his 14 fellow deputies about the importance of “bearing true allegiance to Her Majesty”. Justin Trudeau washes his hands of it. The changes will not come from the House of Commons, but from the National Assembly, which will have to cut the Gordian knot. In this matter, the only argument of tradition will be a bit short, especially at a time when traditions are being jostled on all sides and on all sides and in a country that claims to be multicultural and even postnational. Hoping that we will escape the courts, the usual way of sweeping problems under the carpet and avoiding any debate in Canada.
Quite the opposite, the attitude of the deputies of the PQ and QS has the virtue of launching into the public square a question (that of the nature of the political system) which deserves to be debated there.
It should be added that such a debate does not only concern deputies. All permanent residents who obtain Canadian citizenship must also take this famous oath of allegiance. However, some of them have already asked to be exempted in the name of their political convictions. One of these plaintiffs, of Irish origin, supported his claim thus: “To take an oath to a hereditary monarchy based outside the country would violate my conscience, betray my republican heritage and hinder my efforts to put an end to the monarchy of Canada. They have so far all been dismissed by the courts. Apparently, in the kingdom of Canada, the conscience loses its rights when it is not religious.