OTTAWA — If there's one point on which Stephen Harper has been adamant, it's his claim that the opposition politicians trying to strip him of power are undermining democracy.

"The Canadian government has always been chosen by the people," the prime minister declared in his mid-week televised address to the country.

But now, he told viewers, a coalition of opposition parties is trying to oust him through a backroom deal "without your say, without your consent and without your vote."

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric," said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs. "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.

Harper signed similar document in 2004

In Canada, there's no national vote for prime minister. People elect MPs in 308 ridings, and a government holds power only as long as it has the support of a majority of those MPs.

"We have a rule that the licence to govern is having the confidence of the House of Commons," said Peter Russell, a former University of Toronto professor and adviser to past governors general.

"I'm sorry, that's the rule. If they want to change it to having a public opinion poll, we'd have to reform and rewrite our Constitution."

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.

His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.

"I was just as much a sovereigntist then as I am now," Duceppe sniffed Thursday in a reference to Harper's new-found aversion to any deals with the Bloc.

Such facts are conveniently forgotten by some members of Harper's cabinet who have been even more vocal than their boss in the current crisis.

Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn has characterized the opposition effort to bring down the Tories as a "coup d'etat."

Transport Minister John Baird spoke Thursday of the need for the Conservatives to go "over the heads" of both Parliament and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to take their case straight to the people.

There's no doubt the central Harper claim -- that he can't legitimately be dumped from office without a new election -- is dead wrong, said Jonathan Rose, a Queen's University political scientist.

But as a communications strategy it has the virtue of being simple, direct and powerful.

"He's using this bludgeon of an argument (but) most people just see the word democracy and have some intuitive connection to it," said Rose.

By contrast, the theory and practice of parliamentary confidence and responsible cabinet government take some explaining.

But Harper may have undermined his own effort Thursday with his visit to the Governor General to get permission to shut down Parliament for seven weeks.

It was the only way he could dodge a confidence vote that would have toppled his government next Monday. But it also presented the Liberals, NDP and Bloc with a ready-made response to the prime minister's claim of democratic superiority.

"You need something visceral and simple," said Rose. "The opposition metaphor of locking the doors to Parliament does it. I think people understand that."