Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has at least the merit of being consistent, by refusing to take the oath to Charles III.
Coherent first on his promise made in the election campaign.
Coherent, too, on what the Parti Québécois is. To take an oath of loyalty to a monarchy from which one wishes to free oneself makes no sense.
Admittedly, this ritual is absurd. No need to demonstrate, as the reasons have been so often exposed.
The consequences of this obligation are worthy of bad theater.
That MPs hide to take the oath – as was the case for the Solidaires in 2018 – or that others cough, mumble, add sentences – as the PQ have done since 1970 – it is both painful and stupid.
I make the following assumption: if PSPP and the two other PQ elected officials are the only ones to take up the torch of monarchical infidelity, we will start this same circus again in 2026. We will remain shameful but resigned monarchists.
I make another hypothesis: all the parties would have a political interest in following the PQ footsteps and circumventing this constitutional jam.
Solidarity could make a first gesture of collaboration with the PQ. We see them, side by side, affirm: “We, separatists, the oath for a king, not so much”.
And they would force the Legault government to respect its commitment to get rid of the “imperial legacies”. Or to be caught defending our monarchical bond.
Even the Liberals could benefit from it by embodying the beginning of a change of direction by defying somewhat – symbolically, do not worry, dear Liberals – the Canadian constitution.
We understand that this oath does not hold much, basically. It is not immutable according to the constitutionalists. A tiny little rebellion by everyone would put an end to it. This whole debate reminds us of our old bickering over the crucifix.
It was a detonating political object, as is the case with this oath.
And with a bit of audacity and determination, it could end up like the crucifix: a story from the past.