Of course, if they wish to, the Liberals can manage parliamentary votes in a way as to avoid many of these policies. The Conservatives would support them on Star Wars, for example. The Conservatives would also support stalling on Kyoto - as well as forgoing a referendum to test the popularity of proportional representation (PR).
Voter Turnout
One of the most significant aspects of this election is what did not happen. With slightly more than 60 per cent of electors casting ballots, voter turnout in Canada reached its lowest point in a century. This downward trend in voter participation, which is particularly pronounced among young people, mirrors developments throughout the OECD; in the most recent European Parliament elections, for example, there was a lamentable turnout of about 45 per cent. Many theories have been advanced for this phenomenon, ranging from generalized apathy to the negative effects of television to contentment with the status quo. The explanation is undoubtedly multifaceted. However, there is reason to believe that one of the factors contributing to disaffection is the narrow range of political options guaranteed by first-past-the-post electoral systems, which leads citizens to conclude, with reason, that voting makes little significant difference to political outcomes. That is one key argument for adopting a system of PR, a vital reform that has been called for by the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and the Green Party, along with the Law Commission of Canada and a variety of citizens' groups across the country.
The recent change in the rules on financing of political parties is a step in the right direction insofar as additional money will help smaller parties to survive and grow, thus broadening the choices available to electors. This, combined with a reasonable prospect of representation in Parliament, could help to reinvigorate the electoral process. And it is telling that as support grows for the democratization of the electoral system through PR the media is quick to trot out the tired allegations that it generates "instability."
Still, by itself PR is unlikely to stem the tide of voter disaffection. For that to happen, we believe our entire system of representative democracy must be rendered more substantive, with citizen engagement going beyond the isolated act of heading to the polls every few years. We have to build a more vibrant political culture in which the agenda for the presentation and discussion of issues is not set solely by the media (why was there scarcely any debate in this election campaign around PR or Star Wars?); and we need to create greater opportunities for sustained citizen involvement in the decision-making process locally, provincially and nationally.
More specifically, we have to do more to mobilize against the politics of neoliberalism. Why vote if no major changes can result because neo-liberal values and priorities are enshrined in "trade agreements" with sanctions against governments who fail to go along?
The Sovereignty Issue
Certainly, compared with what is on offer south of the border, the outcome of this election demonstrates the importance of sustaining democratic sovereignty in this country. As readers of CD know, we don't mean Chamber of Commerce boosterism or a soft nationalism that romanticizes Canada. Our notion of sovereignty stresses the need for independence from the American empire and opposing its bid to dominate the world. Our notion of sovereignty points to nation-building projects that meet the needs of people, not satisfying business's quest for profit.
Alas, the sovereignty issue was absent from the campaign. Paul Martin made the point, in response to Harper's pledge to cut taxes below those in the U.S., that Canada's more generous social programs cannot be financed by an American-style tax system. And that was about it. Jack Layton argued vehemently against the U.S. missile defense system, but less as a sovereignty issue than as a peace issue.
So where does this take us in the immediate future?
For Canada's traditional parliamentary party of the Left, the NDP, there is a danger that the Liberal Party will follow tradition by diluting and absorbing much, if not all of its program. Over the years, the Liberal Party has shown that when it is politically necessary to do so, it can take on board most of what social democracy has to offer.
Jack Layton is full of good ideas. Few of them, however, challenge the capitalist order in Canada. Apart from balancing the budget and supporting a new Crown Corporation to invest in renewable energy, Layton's New Democrats have no economic program, no program to extract Canada from NAFTA and U.S.-dominated military alliances, no program to take on the multinationals, homegrown and American. And the one nominally subversive notion Layton put forward, an inheritance tax, was almost immediately withdrawn when his own party told him he was going too far.
Moreover, the NDP has wider credibility problems. No provincial NDP government, for example, has brought in proportional representation, universal child care and pharmacare, affordable housing or any of the green economy measures Jack Layton endorsed throughout the campaign. Moreover, opposition within his own party forced Layton to retreat from his courageous pledge to repeal the Clarity Act.
Beyond the NDP, there was no organized force in the country willing to take on the sovereignty issue. With all its resources, the Council of Canadians was nowhere to be heard. The anti-capitalist Left was also without significant presence. We do not have our own electoral banner. Nor have we yet developed the organizational capacity, structure and unity to conduct common campaigns across the country on critical issues. Some of us did manage to put together a pamphlet"A Different Canada is Possible" but we are aware that this is a modest effort indeed.
The experience of writing and distributing the pamphlet taught us that working together on a national basis around a specific campaign -- for example Star Wars or PR -- might be a way to combine a sense of strategic direction with mobilizing a popular base. This might be one way to help us move toward our ultimate goal -- that of creating a sustainable pan-Canadian anti-capitalist socialist movement.
This article originally appeared in Canadian Dimension, July/August 2004, vol. 38 #4. Reprinted with permission.
Note: And They Call it Democracy
Canadian Dimension
A Different Canada is P...
Canadian Dimension
Stumble It!
As for Quebec sovereignty, it can certainly be argued that the success of the Bloc was not necessarily success for the cause of separation, but rather success for progressive values. However, while that may be a weakness in the analysis, I don't think the article was "kowtowing" by reading the success of the Bloc as a reason to at least take the possibility of a resurgent movement for separation seriously.
Plus a reminder to everyone, generally here at Vive we acknowledge, as does CD, that Canada has different sovereignties or nations (Quebec, First Nations, etc), and we believe that we can build a Canadian identity which is founded on understanding, respect, and cooperation between these sovereignties. Kind of like when the First Nations worked with English and French Canadians to fight off the Americans back in 1812 and thereabouts. If we don't build an inclusive movement, then we risk falling into the trap of building an imperialist movement ourselves.
SO while there is still a huge need for and opportunity for discussion as to what extent, and how, an anti-imperialist civic sovereignty movement can work with the left in Quebec, but I don't think we should blindly oppose all recognition of Quebec's nationhood either.
Meanwhile, what I'D like to talk about from this article is the fact that no citizens' group made Canadian sovereignty an issue in the election, including us. Since we have a minority government we could face another election in a year to two years--how can we plan to act then? And what can we do meanwhile?
---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
As for our "Anti-imperialist" stance, I personally think it is ridiculous to call dealing with an internal problem in a strong manner "Imperialism." I don't like imperialism, and don't think we should invade any foreign country, but if we go to far the other way, we won't have a voice in the world. Canadians are naive to think that "Respecting the rights of a country to govern their own affairs" is entirely fair or realistic. Most countries can't even feed themselves, and we talk of giving them the right to do what they want. Like what, starve? The poor countries would be happy to take the advice of a country like ours that works, as long as they can keep their customs, languages. There will be a fight to decide how the world lives, and being weak will rule Canada's ideas out immediately.
If we do not lead by example, we ourselves will become hypocrites. And that is how we will lose our credibility.
When Susan named Quebec among aboriginal and Anglo- Canadians, she was merely identifying the three most obvious cultures in Canada. These three cultures form the foundation of our nation because they struggled to coexist for hundreds of years before mass migration of other cultures occurred. And it was within the framework designed by these three nations that other mass immigrations knitted their patch in our cultural mosaic.
Thus, we must recognize all cultures. In our current electoral system, the Quebec sovereignty issue is especially pronounced. The method of combining geographic and proportional representations in the first-past-the-post system (plus the Bloc's socialist views) emphasizes the seperatist movement.
To say that we should forcefully deal with this is ridiculous. What we need to do is reform our electoral system (to PR) so that Quebec's socialist and seperatist movements are not joined out of fear of losing seats to the Liberals due to a split of the left/socialist votes.
Then, once we have identified the true magnitude of the seperatist movement, we can work with seperatists in an inclusive manner to try to resolve the issues fuelling seperatism rather than simply attempting to silence seperatists through questionable backroom politics (sponsorship scandal?).
And when "there's a fight to see how the world lives", we will be able to step forwards and say "hey, if our nation can nurture hundreds if not thousands of unique cultures in a progressive manner, maybe the rest of you should look at how we do things here". And if we have engaged in sound foreign policy, they WILL listen.
-KY
---
Kory Yamashita
"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Gaulois continues to argue for moving away from a Quebec-centric focus and towards a focus on Francophonie within and outside of Quebec--and maybe he's right, maybe if everyone talked about "First Nations, Francophonie, etc" it would be more productive.
I really like what Kory said here, and I agree with what she said on my behalf. I think the point about having to reform the electoral system to distinguish left and separatist support in Quebec is a very good way to approach things. (Note that I've also added a topic to the discussion forum about the future of the left in Quebec, which links to an article in CD about what's happening there and different movements within Quebec.)
As for whether it's imperialistic not to be inclusive of our First Nations and Francophonie, I think an argument can be made that yes, it is, since our First Nations and our Francophones certainly feel as though they were dominated, colonized and relegated to lesser status (eg sending aboriginal kids to residential schools, banning their language and religion, etc) in the early history of Canada up to the present. So any movement that continues to do the same, or which doesn't somehow recognize the legitimacy of other nations within Canada, risks remaining in that tradition, and becoming the ethnic/racist nationalism we want to avoid. I'm certainly not arguing for separation, but I'm arguing for the fact that yes, maybe other nations within Canada deserve more equality and recognition and respect and have some legitimate gripes. By building bridges, perhaps there is a way to work more as a cooperative coalition of nations within one nation-state called Canada. How we do this is yet to be seen; and I disagree completely with the idea of transferring a whole lot more power to the provinces, including Quebec, and reducing the role of the federal government, as the Bloc and the Conservatives both seem to want.
---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
I never suggested other nations like the Chinese-Canadians have the same historical significance in Canada, but it is true that they are both very distincy cultures. You talk about being inclusive--but we've already done that. We've given a minority official bilingualism, junkets, FEDERAL governemnt offices in Hull, 5 times the normal funding/athlete for Francophone games participants, a second airport in Montreal, veto powers, we allowed Bill 120, 178 and 150, and none of this worked. It's made things worse. Why? Because the hardliners don't want to be appeased. They want a French republic, so unless we do what the rest of the world does, and ban referendums, we'll continue to be held hostage by the TRUE racists in Canada, and that's the hardline separatists, who believe the French are above everyone else, and should take all of Quebec for themselves. Ask yourself if the Basque separatists in France get to be elected, sit in parliament, and have dinner with Jacques Chirac. The idea is laughable.
You say we will lose our credibility. First of all, how? I never said become racist, I said defend Canada from insurgency. There's a difference. Russia is killing Chechens, Europe is racist, the U.S. is a rogue state, the MIddle East is insane, so please don't tell me such nonsense that we'd lose credibility. We have none already. We're a pushover nation. Other countries respect us, but they snicker behind their backs. Why? Because no coutnry worth its salt allows a group of ethnic anarchists to have so much clout. No other country in the G8 is so pathetically weak.
For Canada to be strong, forget the B.S. most people speak. If the NDP were going to do well in Quebec, it would've already happened. PR would help, but the separation issue is just too big, even though it has gotten less popular since '95. I would argue that for a socialist-federalist party to flourish, FIRST separatism has to be stamped out--Not with guns, but by law. Then the separartists can blow hot air like they do in France, and it won't make a difference.
You say you want to avoid ethnic, racist nationalism, but I never advocated this. I am the one advocating for equality. It's the hardliners like Bouchard that are racist. I believe that the spoiled child of confederation, Quebec, should get no more special favours, but that all of Canada deserves good government. I would agree the Aboriginals deserve more recognition, but the French Canadians deserve much, much less.
As for "Building bridges," what does this mean? A group hug? More patronage? More jobs for Quebecers, none for the rest of Canada? I'm not talkinga about this site, but about separatism. A strong coutnry DOES NOT try to pull the Chamberlain with Hitler and appease people to try and influence them. It must do the harder job, which is opposing what separatists stand for--racist, anarchistic, elitist isolationism. I'm just stating the facts. In this case, you either oppose separatism or support it like the two Communist parties in Canada, and the NDP in all their stupidity. There can't be any grey areas with this issue. Informed people either support one country, or they are throwing their support behind the separatist without even saying so, just like Jean Charest, Daniel Johnson, Robert Bourassa, Jack Layton, David Peterson, and the other failed politicans.
The government really said this, eh? Yikes. Get the word out! Canada is not threatened, yet we purposely mimic the Americans.
Oh yeah, and I love your posts by the way, as well as the others of course. The site got much more interesting when you joined, I must say....maybe I just like the fiery types.
As for your silly assertion that my comments are "Insanity," care to back that up with facts, fool?
Is it insanity if we ban referendums, or if we don't?! Why should a minority of a minority get to jeopardize and blackmail Canada for decades? I guess every developed country in the world is therefore insane. FOOL.
As for insurgency, we've already had separatist insurgency in the name of the FLQ, and they murdered one person, the Government of Canada? Zero. That's for all the NDP fools who think Trudeau made a mistake. A police state is not what happened in Canada, and you know it.
As for stamping out separatism, if we can so that politically, legally, why not? Treason is in the criminal code. Part of being a country is playing by the rules of the nation. Separatists want to keep getting spoiled and subsidized by Canada without being part of Canada. They are insurgents.
As for Milton's assertion that Quebecers aren't stupid and they'll "Join us if we are doing what's in their best interest," I disagree. The federalist Quebecers are already on board. The separatists, at least the hardliners, say what Lucien Bouchard said in 1995: "We will not consider any other offers." When hardline separatists say they want their own country, BELIEVE THEM and treat them as what they are--enemies of the Canadian state, which has given them so much.
That aside.
When I referred to Canada's credibility, I was responding to your assertion that the world will soon reach a time when the populace must decide how it wishes to live. And at this particular moment, Canada will either provide a sparkling example for others to follow or it will be justly critisized for its hypocrisy in dealing with minority groups.
So back to dealing with the minority group (in Canada) of Quebec seperatists.
I agree with you that Quebec is granted unfair recognition, but where we disagree is on how to deal with that. You claim that we can legally force Quebec to remain a part of our country. This is imperialistic in nature. If Quebec is to be a part of our country, it must do so with the consent of the majority of its voters. To impose laws decided by Canada as a whole on an unwilling Quebec IS imperialistic and undermines our longterm goal of an inclusive society.
The distinction being made here is that you believe we can force (legally) Quebec to come along for the ride. This is akin to the American "Melting Pot" culture. My view is that we need to recognize the underlying reasons that so many people support the seperatist movement and we must address those underlying issues to gain the support the softline seperatists. Thus, their culture becomes a part of the Canadian culture as a whole: the Canadian "Mosaic" culture.
But underlying these differing views is a more fundamental belief. My own view is that the majority of Quebequoi wish to be Canadian. And they support the seperatist movement out of frustrated resignation because they are not being heard by the federal government. Quebec is a very left-wing province and the rightwards lean of neo politics must be especially aggravating in Quebec. The promises of socialist agendas from the federal Liberals followed by the execution of very conservative (aka "neo liberal") agendas will obviously alienate socialists. In Quebec, this translates into two-party elections which fosters the division between socialist seperatists and more right-wing nationalists. Thus, the socialists, already frustrated by the federal Liberals' false promises, are suddenly grouped with the seperatists, who are capitalising on this anti-Liberal sentiment.
Funny thing is that in Alberta, the same thing is happening is you just replace "socialist seperatist" with "conservative seperatist".
When people are not being heard, they turn to seperatism. If the feds won't listen to Quebec views, a wholly Quebecois nation will have to. Right? Obviously this doesn't account for intra-provincial divisions, but if we can believe that elections are often decided by emos reactions, then it suddenly makes a lot of sense. The Liberals dont' listen, so the Quebecois turn elsewhere.
So obviously what we need is a system where people are heard and feel that their views count. Under a well thought out PR system, this could be the case. I believe that over the course of a few elections, the seperatist support would dwindle and the Quebec socialist support would grow. If people felt they had more than two choices, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians would begin to vote for what they believe in rather than voting against what they fear. In Quebec, this would, in my opinion, lead to a nationalist socialist vote.
Also, under a PR system, it would be much less likely to see the type of staggering majority that Jean Chretien enjoyed. And so the Quebecois would feel less alienated because their voice would actually be heard in Ottawa.
And just to be clear, I believe that it is the socialists who are frustrated at not being heard. And it is the seperatists who capitalise on this to further their own movement. Take away the alienation and the socialists will stop voting for a seperatist party.
Perturbed, one more thing. If you try to govern by force (physical or legal), you will end up with a nasty backlash. People need to be heard, not told what to do.
-KY
---
Kory Yamashita
"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
First of all, Canada is not even remotely a melting pot. It is very decentralized, very scattered in many senses. I never suggested making Francopohnes into Anglophones. I said I'd thwart separatism by law, non-violently, as every other coutnry does. Even the poor African coutnries are harsher with separatism.
I believe you are assuming too much, Kory. You assume most Canadians live in a fairy tale world where authority isn't needed. Most Canadians don't care if their government forces them to do some things, if it keeps their country together. Canadians want separatism to disappear, and they'd be happy to do it legally. Trust me. Even many soft-nationalsits would eventually accept this.
As for suggesting that it is imperialist for the rest of Canada to decide if Quebec has the right to separate, this is hilarious. Facts is: Quebec joined Canada by choice, and that brougth many benefits, and a few responsibilities. One is not to threaten the country's existence.
You mentioned that most Quebecers actually want to be Canadians, yet you say they still have the right to decide to leave. You are therefore not respecting their desires. You are discounting the two NO votes, but would accept just one YES vote as democractic. Can't you see the hypocrisy? Face it, Quebecers want to be in Canada, but there ARE a significant number of Quebecers who are hardliners. I think you have mis-read them.
You said we should address the root cause of separatism. You forget that the Quebec media elite, the influentials in Quebec, are hardline separatists. They want a sovereign state, and not because of anything Canada did or didn't do. They want a French republic. They want to go back to the Plains of Abraham and win. That's what they want.
Another thing you failed to mention was that Quebec is autocratic. The language laws have been declared racist by Quebec's supreme courts, and the federal government tolerates this racism. I guess your "Cultural mosaic" argument deosn't apply to Quebec.
The chief electoral officer is a hardline separatist who was, (get this) appointed for life! What you forget is that hardliners want to do what it takes to win a referendum. Democracy doesn't matter, winning matters to them. Voter fraud (as what happneed in 1995) would allow them to pull off the biggest land grab in history. You think this is fine and dandy--a mis-informed population being tricked and de-frauded of their history, and forced into separation. Oh well I guess.
Finally, by your definition, John A. MacDonald was imperialist. He was, coincidentally or not, our best prime minister ever. If Quebec separated, if would threaten to turn Canada into a Puerto Rico, with the U.S. calling the shots. Any movement that risks turning Canada into an impotent, poor country must be squashed by law. Canada is ruled by law in most cases, not direct democracy. Separatism threatens the well-being of 30 million Canadians, so that fewer than 2 million Quebecers can glorify their French egos.
Based on conversations I've had with Anglophone and Francophone friends who were raised in Quebec, many Francophone Quebecois grew up feeling like second class citizens in their own country, Regardless of whether this resulted from Anglophone ignorance and disrespect or is a result of English being the North American language of commerce, the feelings were there and didn't sit well with many, hence the separatist movement.
The only way to address the Quebec separatist movement is to continue evolving towards a country where Quebecois believe their culture and values are appreciated and protected. This won't happen if we continue to allow Canada to continue down a path that accepts the capitalism/consumerism run amok movement that styles itself 'globalization'.
If we can move Canada's course to that promoted by this site, separatist movements will eventually fade to dull grumblings in darkened bars.
In the end, diatribes concerning the Quebec separatist movement only serve to strengthen the separatist cause.