Sovereignists and royalists, that's who I am !

 Sovereignists and royalists, that's who I am !

A translation assisted by Google translation and Antidote of our french text Souverainiste et royaliste, voilà ce que je suis !

Societas Criticus, revue de critique sociale et politique, Vol. 27-04, Éditos : www.societascriticus.com

Michel Handfield, M.Sc. sociology (2025-05-28)

When I listened to the throne speech delivered by our King, Charles III (2025-05-27), I wasn't offended. In fact, I was even pleased. Yet, I'm far from interested in the monarchy for its pomp and pageantry. Princely "glamour" doesn't interest me.

But politically, I see advantages to our British-origin royal regime and to this sharing of the king.

First, not being involved in politics, but representing the constitutional institution, this makes him an interesting arbiter, especially since he is shared between several countries, which limits the desire for autocracy on his part !

Then, if it prevents an individual from seizing all powers by decree, as we see Donald Trump trying to do in the United States, it constitutes a bulwark of security for the people against the authoritarian attempts of their leaders.

Naturally, a dictator might try. But since the British system also involves the Commonwealth, there is a fraternity that could help each other in the event of one of its members becoming authoritarian.

Here too, nothing is perfect, but if Commonwealth members work together to strengthen and expand democracy, reforms are possible. This is probably easier to achieve than within the framework of the UN, for example. In short, the monarchy has strengths that cannot be ignored.

My sovereignist friends will tell me that, if this is good for Canada, it is not for Quebec and that it would be even less so in the context of an independent Quebec.

But that's where they are seriously wrong !

First, a country that becomes independent must renegotiate partnership agreements. By retaining the monarchy, we would also retain our membership in the Commonwealth. That would be something.

Then, it would certainly facilitate our negotiations with Canada in the event of separation, having the same sovereign. It’s hard to tell us to go to hell if we have the same head of state ! The same would ultimately apply to our North American agreements, such as the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, since we would retain the same head of state as Canada, a signatory to the agreement. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be some genuine disagreements, but they could certainly be resolved between “gentlemen” who are in the same constitutional monarchist regime.

Then, nothing would prevent us from concluding other agreements with Europe, given our French past; nor from wanting to develop certain alliances with South American countries, some of which are of Latin origin or part of the Commonwealth, just like us ! In short, our dual Franco-British past could prove positive in many cases. So, why deny it?

Before dismissing, out of hand, the partnerships we already have, we must first look at their positive aspects. Independence is great, but do we want to be alone or do we want to have a few partners to support us in this process? If we want partners, we don't start our new international relationships by rejecting the ones we already have, as Donald Trump is doing. Let's be more "fair play" and strategic !