Beyond her physical disappearance, the death of Elizabeth II brings to light a fundamental principle of political systems: that of sovereignty. Who holds sovereignty, this ability to ultimately decide, in our political communities? Can there be a vacuum of sovereignty? These questions are important because they determine the legitimacy of political regimes.
Posted at 2:00 p.m.
That reigns ?
To reign is to exercise sovereignty. The exercise of sovereignty manifests itself, among other things, in republics and constitutional monarchies. In a republic, the people are the source of sovereignty. According to philosopher Philip Pettit, the people in a republic can exercise control over a government made up of their elected representatives. This control ensures that government decisions are in line with the common good. The republican model thus demonstrates the empowerment of citizens, their ability to decide.
The source of sovereignty in a constitutional monarchy is hereditary: it is that of the king or queen.
Their exercise of sovereignty is tempered by a constitution – this is the case in Canada – or by conventions, as in the United Kingdom, with the symbol of the king or queen in his Parliament. Although he receives advice from elected ministers, the monarch decides at the end of the day.
The republican and monarchical models have clashed many times in the history of the British Commonwealth. In the 17th century, we saw in England the establishment of a short-lived republic under Oliver Cromwell. After independence, Ireland, India and many Asian and African countries became republics, and Barbados has recently adopted this model. There was a referendum in Australia on this question in 1999. The government of Pierre Trudeau rejected this model and the Constitution Act of 1982 stipulates that the queen is that of Canada. Nevertheless, the feeling in favor of the republic was diffuse, but constant, especially in Quebec. The legitimacy of the monarchy is diminished.
The devolution of authority
In studying British political culture since the Middle Ages, the historian Ernst Kantorowitz indicated that there was no vacancy for royalty. The king’s physical body dies, but his spiritual body lives constantly, for the continuity of the state depends on it. The principle of devolution is at the heart of the political system by ensuring the stability of the political system over time. Thus, the National Assembly of Quebec adopted in 2021 Law 17, stipulating that the possible death of the sovereign would not end or interrupt the activities of the Parliament of Quebec, the government and the courts, in any way. it would be. Since authority is transmitted without interruption from one sovereign to another, the permanence of the regime is then guaranteed, ensuring the maintenance of order and legitimacy.
Indeed, legitimacy is based in particular on seniority, on habits and customs that have accumulated over time.
Since its origins are remote, the monarchy seems legitimate for its subjects. They got used to a monarch reigning, because that would be the order of things. Despite several ups and downs, the reign of Elizabeth II strengthened the legitimacy of the regime among several of her subjects, especially since it was exceptionally long.
From now on, the accession of Charles to the throne imposes new questions. Even if it guarantees the stability of the regime, is it still legitimate to entrust an heir with the responsibility of sovereignty? Is it rather that of the citizens?