I repeat here some of my thoughts the past few days, which took the form of comments in other blogs (especially those of Joseph Facal and sovereignty Plume). I take this opportunity to improve and to correct some unfortunate typos.
I thank all the bloggers sovereigntists or not they are part of our group. Bloggers, participate actively in the ferment of ideas, the vitality of the sovereignty movement and the great reflection of the domestic social democrats of Quebec.
1. ON THE END OF THE REIGN OF TONY BLAIR
The era of Tony Blair has just ended and already his successor, Gordon Brown, just restore the old name of the party (the "New Labour" becomes the "Labour ") and the old logo. The Labour is going back to its old policy of the center-left Labour Party.
The level of the party's popularity is at its lowest in Scotland, the collapse of Labour to the SNP even took a young pro-independence party. Scotland has not half the policy space of Quebec, but the very idea that the SNP could have the success scares Unionists.
short, it is reasonable to ask what "killed" the Labour: is it the obstinacy of Blair to engage in unpopular wars to restore some pride to the British military (do not forget that 'he admires Margaret Thatcher), is the simple test of power, is the failure the center-right policies that have been applied inconsistently by a party that was trying to "protect his left" while "to right"?
fact remains that the "case" New Labour is now a serious warning to the many parties in Western democracies are trying to refocus on the side lucid-reformer. Can they "deliver"?
It is curious that it worked in some countries of northern Europe (one thinks, for example in Sweden and its so-called principle of "golden triangle") then ... bloc countries that Anglo-Saxon can not.
Could it be that the British parliamentary model has the effect of hardening in two ideological blocs unchanging, represented by a Social Democratic Party and a conservative party? And if a party tries to emerge from its "ecological niche", he is irresistibly drawn, as drawn by a rubber band? In light of this hypothesis, it is reasonable to ask: What if creating a second axis ideological (based on the constitutional issue) is not sufficient to ensure the long term, the presence of new ecological niches for parties occupying the political scene in Quebec?
If this is the case, one wonders what would then be possible developments in the political balance of Quebec. The coexistence of two social democratic parties from the same mold, from 1973 to 2003, and the absence of a true conservative party during this period of 30 years, would it be an "aberration" in the parliamentary model in the UK Quebec?
should perhaps worry ...
2. CONSULTATIONS ON THE STRENGTH OF POPULAR
I mentioned some discomfort sovereignists against the PQ in an article in my blog, in early April. What is the PQ, apart from the promotion of sovereignty and the preparation of a single gesture (the referendum)? As far as I know, the PQ is not a lobbying organization or dissemination of ideas (think tank style ), which is content to print flyers and studies ... is a nationalist party that is supposed to use everything in its power to advance Quebec! I have found that two "acts of sovereignty" significant between 1996 and 2003, namely:
- 1997: attempt to get rid of the Lieutenant Governor (as Jean Chrétien has happily ignored by appointing Lise Thibault)
- 1999-2000: Law 99 (which has had less impact than might have been expected)
If a clear majority of the population vote for the right to self-determination of Quebec, or in favor of abolishing the office of lieutenant governor, it weighs much heavier than a parliamentary vote, which will always seen as partisan and who may (in such cases) be dismissed out of hand by Ottawa.
The referendum is not ONLY for the sovereignty and is a very powerful tool, which gives legitimacy to any absolutely unquestionable political gesture. If the friend Arnold in California is capable of governing "by referenda," we can do.
3. ON POLITICAL REFORM NEEDED
Since our parliamentary system does not (it seems) the formation of coalition governments, the PQ was sentenced to pose as party convener of the left and right, in the hope of forming a majority. We have discussed often, it is not desirable that the PQ is a party "without contents", which hopes to take power with the only Article 1.
So there is an urgent need to refocus the party on the desires and values of citizens, who have played for 30 years. Is it possible to "Rake wide enough? I do not know. One thing is certain, the electorate seems to follow a distribution curve left and right much more flattened (eccentric) than in the past.
Since we have become "masters at home," since Canada's federal system gives substantial autonomy and already we have been able to expand through our initiatives, we had the opportunity to choose a model company and the experiment. It is therefore not surprising that people critical of our society's choices are now offering different avenues. Being masters at home, it also manage our own failures and our own dissensions.
The balkanization of the electorate is therefore an indirect but undeniable, from our grip. External factors, such as the economic shift to the right is perceived in the West for a decade, are not strangers either. The collapse of ideologies of the extreme left of the 20th century has not finished pushing the pendulum to the right.
Finally, the consequences of the Quiet Revolution and the widespread acceleration of our lifestyle, coupled with expanded access to credit, stimulated "Cocooning" - "militant individualism" (pardon the oxymoron), finding some comfort rather materialistic. Under these conditions, our vision of society is simply torn between the individualism of "taxpayer" (ex-citizen) and the soft relativism imposed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It has emerged the sovereignty party Québec solidaire, which presents itself as a "second track" sovereignty ... well, maybe more a siding at the moment. What you should understand is that the ideology Socialist party is as alien to social democratic ideals of the Quiet Revolution, the sellout neoliberal currently imposed by the PLQ.
It would however not surprising that a libertarian separatist party to emerge. Libertarianism sees traditionally large states "bureaucratic" as enemies of individual freedom. They would therefore be tempted to support an approach sovereignty. With the ADQ
who glean the "right materialist" and QS gnawing the "left community," the PQ is sentenced to the center. However, our electoral base is not required to melt so fast. It is perhaps enough to "expand the center" by showing how moderate left and right can coexist in a social contract that is both flexible and responsible. In short, more than ever we need to rehabilitate the Quebec Model, in an updated version.
It is clear that the collapse of ideologies in Quebec will be more acute than follow societal debates, not two but three main ideological socialism versus neo-liberalism, conservatism versus social liberalism, independence versus integration in Canada. There are still many niche green "to occupy space in ideologies. And it bodes very badly.
The British parliamentary model, based perhaps on a conception of Manichean good and evil, implies the existence of two opposing political parties only. This in turn requires bipartisanship that there are only two possible answers to every moral issue and that a third way is likely similar to one of two polarities already defined. It is also not surprising that even in a presidential system like the United States, the British parliamentary heritage is firmly anchored bipartisanship.
In fact, such a model accommodates the presence of third parties only if they are marginal. I'm not surprised that Canadian political analysts have said very seriously the disappearance of one of the three major parties in Quebec with such "exclusion principle" is swimming fast quantum physics (or Darwinism in politics)!
What about a model that allows for dual minority head of state? A party can take power with less than 50% of elected members, representing less than 50% of citizens?
This model not only of the PQ government would take power under conditions not allowing sovereignty (since minority negates the legitimacy of such a project) ... but it could very well develop into a reverse situation, where several parties joined separatists a large majority of the population, but are unable to get elected or to advance their common project (since it is not side splitting federalist). One comes to expect the return of the Equality Party!
A logical conclusion to this "paradox parliamentary" is that The PQ should instead focus its efforts toward political reform of the electoral law and the structure of government, even before embarking on an episode referendum. This great social project would precede the sovereignty, rather than be the consequence. Coalition governments are essential to the survival of the sovereignty project! I'll post the details of such a project in my blog as soon as possible.
4. ON THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROACH OF MR TURP
Mr. Daniel Turp deposit in the National Assembly, May 17, its draft Constitution of Quebec. I welcome the initiative of this great ruler, which I always appreciate the intellectual rigor.
However, I wonder if it really is a good time to make this gesture. Currently, and especially because of the weak leadership of the PQ and the results of recent elections, Mario Dumont (a potential ally in this case) really has not been kind to our party. In politics, for developing the "manly friendship" should be hit hard, then socialize. Ms. Marois is not yet installed at the head of the PQ has not yet established a dialogue with Dumont, did not find common ground with the ADQ and has not negotiated truce policy (essential to get such projects). The Constitution of
Mr. Turp, and dropped in a pasture, could be eating all round by the other parties. Worse, there may be recovery of text from other parties, purification of the Constitution and abuse of text to a version insignificant or subordinate to federalism. And the PQ can not do anything, confined to his position of third-party.
One reason for this very bad timing of this outburst is perhaps the fear of the QP to be pushed around more during the upcoming elections. Or, Mr. Turp sees this project as his "swan song". I can understand, however, that the PQ sees the need to present a text BEFORE the other parties do not steal the initiative. But we saw what it gave to Ottawa with the "Quebec nation", the Bloc was overtaken by Harper and could do nothing thereafter. The motion that the Bloc was preparing disappeared into the ether .... parliamentary This is what happens when you throw the "-balloon" while we are at a disadvantage.
I myself have doubts about the advisability of bringing a project as fundamental to the identity and the future of Quebec at a time when the PQ is virtually without a head, in situation history of weakness, and very small. I'm not sure we will draw our Getting ahead of the game will remember us by Jean Charest, in the history books as "this great Quebec nationalist ( sic) and Canada, which gave Quebec constitution honorable (sic re- ), with the support of the ADQ and the PQ despite protests ?
It still remains that we must do everything in our power, even in opposition, even as third-party for the Quebec nation advance. Even if only to rouse nationalism struggling to assert itself over the past decade. I salute the courage of Mr. Turp, who took a huge political risk by depositing its draft Constitution. Hopefully the rest of the PQ and especially Ms. Marois, would support this project and will defend against attempts to hijack. Ultimately, it will ask the people to decide. The final content of such a document is not decided behind closed doors between politicians, but with the people as a guide.
5. ON THE BACK OF THE NATIONAL CONSENSUS
We are living a unique moment in the history of Quebec, where two-thirds of the deputies elected to the Assembly National are either autonomous or separatists. They should put their differences aside and decide to join forces temporarily to that, politically at least, Quebec to be a big step forward. Left to put aside our economic ideologies, both left of center, center-right or right-to-libertarian flavor. "
is a moment that will not last forever. Quebec has missed some great opportunities to enjoy national consensus, for example in 1990-1992 (between Meech and Charlottetown). It is this "national failure" lamentable QLP Bourassa precipitated the creation of the ADQ, let us remember.
We could do a long way together. Reform through some of the state. Dust the Allaire report and wonder why we have so miserably failed in our attempts to recover the national powers that are rightfully ours (and legitimacy). We adopt a constitution (and not an ersatz symbolic constitution sauce Charest). Rocking the Lieutenant Governor in the gutter of history. Ownership of the exclusive power to levy taxes. Etc..
Together, the nationalists of the PQ and the ADQ could do great things. In 1995, Mr. Dumont was in the "Change Team". I do not see this as a contradiction, quite the contrary. The margin between the sovereignty-association and the 22 points of the Allaire report is extremely thin. Between the idea of a "broad autonomy" and that of a "satellite sovereignty," it is mainly the method that differs. The question in both cases, events and consistent pursuit of our legitimate self-determination.
6. ON TWO PARADOXES OF IDEOLOGICAL ADQ
When you think about it, there there is a very thin margin between sovereignty-association and the 22 points of the Allaire report.
If you want to work with the ADQ, refill activists and elected officials before their founding document. Currently, many ADQ are defined primarily in opposition to the PQ, an attitude which is frankly childish as for me. Other activists ADQ identify themselves primarily in neo-liberal discourse and the ADQ represents for them a comfortable political identity. But they are not ideologues, much less constitutional - they are neo-liberals who are primarily interested in economic doctrine of the party, and use only autonomism to combat the ideology sovereignty. This is the first ideological paradox of the ADQ.
short, it would suffice to teach the Allaire report ADQ and the true nature of the way of autonomy, so they soften slightly. The end of the honeymoon Parliamentary risk to calm a little, Dumont can now make gaffes that have real consequences, which was not previously the case.
If one considers that the ADQ is still his political vision and constitutional in the wake of the report Allaire (What some activists have openly denied, rogues), then any serious application of the program would lead Quebec to the following situation:
- irremediable opposition to the ideals promoted by the Liberal Party and the federalist doctrine generally
- a game Constitutional very hard, which would position Dumont and Harper
- antagonist actions of breaks affecting both the Quebec and Ottawa reports that the state structure Quebec
- an alliance vital, even indispensable, with the separatists and nationalists with some Liberals
can therefore be considered if Dumont had the courage of his convictions (or program), it follows a typical Quebec psychodrama as we've rarely seen. The ADQ believe they have in their hands a firecracker equivalent to the Beige Book Claude Ryan (nationalist petrified). In fact, they carry around in their pockets parka a real atomic bomb greyée a sash, the Allaire Report . What is absurd is to see the ADQ adopt a discourse "beige", while maintaining a party program "Allaire". This is the second ideological paradox of the ADQ. The best
way to force the ADQ to play our game would be to boost his nationalist activists (a significant part of this party) in the bombing of arguments by Allaire and autonomy in their education accelerated. Dumont would put in an impossible situation and force him to leave his lair Constitution (very cozy). This would also cause an unmanageable tension between the ADQ and the ADQ autonomy neo-liberals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment