September 8, 1997
- COMMENT -
Ripe for defeat
by Julius H. Grey
Most commentators on the Quebec scene since the last referendum, including
this author, often have assumed that the Quebec nationalists are very strong
and stand a good chance of victory in the next few years. Had they not come
tantalizingly close in 1995? And are not demographic forces working in their
favour, in view of the marked tendency of young anglophones to leave the
province? Yet, upon reflection, it is more likely that the nationalists
have peaked and are now in the process of irreversible decline. Numerous
signs point in this direction.
The nationalist movement is clearly divided. Some remain obsessed with
language; others are liberal and broad-minded. Some still hope for some
sort of compromise that would see Canada continue in one or another form;
others are completely separatist and see independence as a crucial goal
with only a marginal interest in partnership. Some are still ethnocentric,
even though current rules of political correctness force them to disguise
this somewhat; others are genuinely pluralist. There is absolutely no agreement
about the goals after sovereignty. Some view sovereignty as a weapon to
fight the neo-liberal global economy; others are as right wing as Preston
Manning or Ontario Premier Mike Harris and see independence simply as a
way of promoting francophones.
Further, the nationalists lose most of their public support as soon as they
become specific about their plans. Those citizens willing to vote for them
to promote French or to defend the interests of Quebec in a general way,
express very liberal views when specific questions about the use of English
on signs, access to English schools, or participating in Canadian federal
programs are raised by pollsters. There is virtually no support outside
the hard-core nationalist milieu for independence and for total unilingualism.
Even monthly polls have been turning against sovereignty, although not yet
decisively. Many nationalists have realized that time works against them
and this explains the new urgency of calls for unity inside the movement
and the demands of many for an immediate resumption of the campaign for
sovereignty. There has appeared a marked pessimism among many nationalist
commentators, so different from their buoyancy two years ago.
Most important, the rational basis for nationalism and for sovereignty
has disappeared. Until 1960, there was glaring injustice toward francophones
- in income, in opportunity and in education. There was a very appealing
argument to be made that confederation, while it had fostered some development
in Quebec, had ultimately failed Quebecers and they could do better outside.
However, the successes of the nationalist movement during the Quiet Revolution
in redressing the injustices also had the effect of destroying the basis
for independence. It is not surprising that the most ardently nationalist
generation are the baby-boomers who were exposed to some discrimination
and injustice. The next generation may have voted Yes in 1995, given the
tendency of youth everywhere to vote for change. However, they are not deeply
committed and are, indeed, ripe for a rebellion against the nationalist
dogmas of their fathers, against untenable claims that English Canada rejects
Quebec, against the assertion that Quebec has been denied certain vague
powers which it "needs," against the claim of acute danger to
the French language which only sovereignty and increased language controls
can avert and against the quasi-mythical tenet that English Quebecers are
the best treated minority in the world.
Many of the young will find these views wrong or, even more often, irrelevant
to their hopes and preoccupations. Moreover, some young francophones now
come from groups other than traditional French-Canadians and they are not
as susceptible to an emotional nationalism that has been part of Quebec's
culture. This integration is one of the great successes of the Quiet Revolution,
but one of its effects will be to hasten the demise of nationalism as political
ideology.
The coming collapse of nationalism in Quebec will in may ways be similar
to the collapse of communism. While communism may have had genuine appeal
before universal health care and education, the very successes of the post-war
democratic left in tackling social injustice destroyed the rationale for
embracing radical, painful solutions. The movement collapsed because it
could no longer win or inspire anyone outside the circle of those who were
definitively convinced, and even those were becoming somewhat fatigued and
cynical.
The fact that the nationalists came close to winning in 1995 should not
camouflage their weakness. The Communists won their greatest successes in
1974 and 1975 in Angola and Viet Nam. Five years later, the process of decay
became apparent to most observers.
Ultimately, the weakness of nationalism can be demonstrated by the absence
of any significant class, group or profession that would plausibly be better
off in a sovereign Quebec. In 1960, a serious social argument could have
been raised, but today it has evaporated, and large numbers of citizens
in a fully democratic state will not long act against their economic interests.
The sovereignists are further weakened by the realization of people throughout
the world that small nation states cannot hope to defend citizens against
the tremendous power of capital and against global markets. Large units
have a somewhat better chance, although in the end international cooperation
will be essential if citizens rather than capital are to rule. This does
not mean the nation-state is about to disappear but it does diminish the
importance of national sovereignty as a goal.
It is therefore very likely that in spite of the decline in the number
of anglophones, the nationalist movement and the fervour around it will
evaporate very much as the ultra-Catholic Quebec of Maurice Duplessis with
its isolationist ideology evaporated in the space of three or four years
when it lost its economic and social basis.
If this happens, the federalist hard-liners such as partitionists and
advocates of "tough love" will undoubtedly claim credit. They
will not deserve it.
When communism started its nose-dive, a strange phenomenon was observed.
Although communism became visibly weak, propaganda from the far right intensified,
popularizing expressions like "evil empire" and attempting to
discredit not only the moribund communist movement, but all of the achievements
of the democratic left over the previous 50 years. Communism would have
collapsed anyway, but the world would have been a kinder, more stable place
had the neo-liberal right not succeeded in portraying itself as the victors
over tyranny and in seizing power. In fact, the true victor over communism
was social democracy which destroyed communism's raison d'être long
before its final demise. In the same way, the true victory over nationalism
will belong to the Quiet Revolution and not to hard-liners.
The hard-liners create an additional risk - that of an "accidental"
nationalist victory. Just as the fatally ill communist movement could still
win some victories almost to the end, so the nationalist movement, even
in decline, could win a referendum if a sufficiently cogent pretext were
found. It is unlikely that such a victory would in fact lead to sovereignty
any more than an "accidental" communist victory would have arrested
the decline. After all, the federal government could always call a second
referendum to a very clear and direct question and there has never existed
a serious chance of sovereignist victory under such conditions. However,
it is obvious that an "accidental" nationalist victory in a referendum
would create uncertainty and anxiety for several years. Yet, without a pretext,
possibly provided by hard-liners, such a result is almost unthinkable.
Further, the decline of nationalism must not be equated with the defeat
or political disappearance of those who have been nationalists. There is
an idealism, a sense of purpose in the movement which Canada and Quebec
will need in the future if they hope to defend our social system. The coming
decline will surely make many committed nationalists depressed and bitterly
disappointed. Some might even choose active Americanization, given that
so many Quebec nationalists have traditionally found the U.S. more congenial
than English Canada. It is therefore essential to try to create new movements
that include the nationalists and to present new perspectives that will
allow former antagonists to work together rather than to crush one side.
Partitionism and hard-line positions are not generally conducive to a realignment
of political forces and to a shift in loyalties.
Of course, federalists should not err in the opposite direction. It is part
of respect for one's adversary to state one's views frankly and directly.
No amount of protest from nationalists about "fear-mongering"
should stop federalists from describing the potential dire consequences
of separation for the economy and for Quebec and Canadian society. There
is no reason, however, to go on to insults, to one-sided views of history
or to threats.
Federalists have time on their side, should avoid unnecessary showdowns
which always carry the risk of an "accident" and should show respect
for the great achievements of the nationalists during the Quiet Revolution,
while laying the foundation for Canada's post-nationalist future.
- Julius H. Grey is a Montreal lawyer and member of the McGill University
faculty of law.
Please see
| 
Back to JGrey.htm Home Page
Please phone (514)934-0023 
or e-mail us your thoughts.