Fear is not a winning condition

In 1996, the PQ government of Lucien Bouchard set out to create the “winning conditions” to win a third referendum on Quebec sovereignty. It was imperative to tackle the public debt to achieve the famous “zero deficit”. This major cleanup resulted in painful cuts to health, education and social assistance.

We know the result: the winning conditions on the financial level have transformed into losing conditions for support for independence, which has continued to decline since that time.

For Michel Roche, professor of political science at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, this is not a coincidence. Neoliberal policies, he believes, have considerably weakened the social solidarity of Quebecers, undermining their sense of belonging and, at the same time, their desire to create an independent state.

This thesis is at the heart of Mr. Roche’s most recent essay, The national question, a social question: essay on the crisis of the Quebec independence movement (Free). For this left-wing separatist, national identity is not just about a common language and culture. For many, it also comes from a feeling of solidarity. “The national question and the social question remain combined, intertwined, inseparable,” he writes.

These two questions have been inseparable since the Quiet Revolution, since the creation of the welfare state and universal social programs, in short, since Quebecers began to defend, together, a certain idea of ​​the common good.

It is also because these two questions were inseparable that Quebec almost became a country in 1995. “The rise of the Yes vote in the Quebec referendum of 1995 came from a mobilization of social movements in the face of federalist employers,” writes Michel Roche . The right could never have won alone. Separating from a developed country that is one of the oldest liberal democracies and where the standard of living is among the highest in the world requires much more than a reminder of the Conquest of 1760, the repression of the Patriots, the decline of French language or data on fiscal imbalance. »

I hope that Paul St-Pierre Plamondon will read Michel Roche’s essay. That’s what I said to myself on Tuesday, listening to the PQ leader rehash the sad fate of Quebecers colonized by British masters, insisting on “deportations, executions and the ban on having education in French” .

All this after a speech that was alarmist, to say the least, on Sunday at the National Council of the Parti Québécois. A speech based, essentially, on fear.

It’s funny, in the past, fear was part of the arsenal of the federalist troops. Be careful, the No supporters warned darkly, an independent Quebec would be condemned to ruin! Capital flight would be inevitable; already, the armored vans of Brink’s were heading to Toronto…

In a strange turn of events, it is now the PQ leader who chooses to scare Quebecers, by giving them the choice between independence and… extinction.

The federal government is “a regime that only knows how to crush those who refuse to assimilate,” he warned on Sunday. A third referendum will be their “ultimate chance” to found a country. If the No wins, they will be condemned to decline, to the point of disappearance. Nothing less.

It was surprisingly dramatic – and sudden. For years, the PQ put its option on the back burner and, all of a sudden, it becomes a national emergency? And then, are we really to believe that in Ottawa, a terribly evil regime is relentlessly plotting to eradicate the Quebec people?

With such a speech, PSPP will convince the convinced, but will never win a majority of Quebecers to its cause. He who knew how to show a positive and unifying image – propelling the PQ to the top of the polls – seems seized by an irresistible desire to raise scarecrows.

However, it seems to me that scaring the world is not the most inspiring thing. Especially when it comes to giving yourself a country.

“A speech like this can alienate many young people from the independence project. When it comes to independence, to build a country, I think that hope is more fruitful than resentment,” commented the parliamentary leader of Québec solidaire, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois.

He’s not wrong. Surveys show that young people dream less and less of independence. They do not want a Quebec that turns in on itself nor a Quebec that laments the injustices of past centuries. Rather than seeking to scare, the sovereignist movement should redouble its efforts to reach young people on their ground, for example by defending social and environmental causes.

Convince Quebecers by offering them a project that brings hope: this also applies to newcomers, by the way. I’m not saying it would be easy, but you should at least… try.

This does not mean that the preservation of French and culture is a secondary consideration. Of course it is essential. But for Michel Roche, “we cannot count on identity issues alone to rally a majority, as a certain conservative movement suggests”. Mathematically, it’s just impossible.

For several years, this conservative movement has called for getting rid of any social project inspired by progressive values, underlines the political scientist. On the left, on the contrary, some consider independence as an obstacle to the social struggles that are dear to them.

In short, the sovereignist movement, which needs absolutely everyone, is more torn apart than ever.

Aware of the immensity of the challenge, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon calls for forming “the largest coalition for Yes that Quebec will ever know.” He wants to bring together sovereignists of all stripes, reaching out to conservatives, progressives, libertarians and even… Pastafarians.

The PQ leader hopes to convince all these beautiful people to mingle happily like spaghetti, during a referendum campaign: “Whether you are on the right, on the left, whatever disagreement we may have on the subject of the day, we must, out of loyalty to Quebec, agree on the essentials. »

Pierre Falardeau said it differently: “As if the national liberation struggle was not, in itself, a social project. The boat is sinking and passengers want to discuss the interior layout of the boat. Let’s row, chalice! »

The important thing is to give a people their full political freedom, added the late filmmaker. There will always be time, afterwards, to discuss the color of the captain’s cap…

This grand coalition, all ideological tendencies united, is undoubtedly the only way for Quebec to achieve independence. The PQ was almost there, at the time when Louise Harel could cohabit within the same party as Jacques Brassard. But I sometimes wonder if it’s not too late now to row together. Our society is so divided, we tear each other apart over so many details, that I wonder if we are still capable of putting our squabbles aside to make common cause about anything.

Rallying the PQ and QS for independence ended in failure not so long ago. Since then, the gap has widened and polarization has deepened. Now imagine uniting the prodiversity left and the identity right. Both camps are extremely suspicious of each other. They don’t even agree on basic definitions anymore.

When I read, for example, on social networks, the angry comments denouncing the “identity nationalism” of PSPP, followed by equally acerbic comments about the same man’s “leftist policies”, I tell myself that the party is not won.

If the PQ leader persists in playing the fear card, I even fear that it will be lost in advance.