Whither the Parti Québécois?

[August1991]

Thomas Mulcair is on record as saying that Quebec separatism is not dead if the PQ loses this election. (He's also on record saying that he will vote for a PLQ candidate - a "progressive" old friend, apparently.)

Separatism dead? I think Trudeau Snr declared its death in 1976 - just before the PQ was elected in 1976.

=====

Nationalists will always be among us. They come in various stripes but ultimately they believe co-operation among similars is more likely than co-operation among dissimilars. Maybe nationalists are right. Co-operation is not easy to achieve.

As to the PQ, I have no doubt that this election will quickly lead to its collapse, more like the death of the UN (Union Nationale) than the BQ.

Why?

Two reasons:

1) PKP. It made sense for the PQ of the 1970s to have someone like him. Not the PQ of the 2000s, and not this way. Having brought him in, he should have promoted PMEs and not a fist in the air. With PKP, the PQ has lost some of its union leftist support but it hasn't gained the right-of-centre small business people. PKP has destroyed the PQ brand.

2) The Charter wedge issue was a smart gamble, but it failed. It didn't bring the CAQ voters to the PQ and it simply pushed many allophone/young voters away. This too has destroyed the PQ brand.

=====

Who will lead the PQ after Marois? Lisée? Drainville? These two guys were the architects of this horrible defeat. Their credibility is now zero. They are "Joe Clark master political strategists".[/sarcasm]

PKP? I simply don't see this guy doing the rubber chicken circuit to create/resurrect a party. He's no Jean Charest.

=====

In the future, if the PQ collapses, where will the PQ 27% of Quebec voters go? Well, that's an interesting question. In the next federal election, where will all those ex-BQ voters go, the ones who voted for the NPD in 2011?

Some will vote QS, others CAQ and many will stay at home, complaining in cynical terms about the injustice of our political system.

====

Is the division of the nationalist vote to blame? This is a common meme among people who want Quebec to be a sovereign country. (Another meme is that French Quebecers are afraid, or too easily influenced by federalist-controled media, eg. Gesca.)

After this election, I would expect numerous efforts to unite nationalists under one umbrella. Since the PQ brand is now destroyed, it will likely be an umbrella with a different name - or more likely two names. IMV, the great error of too many Quebec nationalists was to mix the question of a separate country with the question of left/right (projet de société). I suspect that many Quebec nationalists will opt for QS while others for CAQ.

[Moonlight Graham]

I can't see the PQ collapsing, they're too passionate of a group

[jbg]

I can't see the PQ collapsing, they're too passionate of a group

Correct me if I'm ignorant on this but wasn't a PQ majority forecast?

[overthere]

It is illustrative of the political chaos in Quebec that the Liberals- with the exposure of the massive corruption in their former regime- are still in the game.

[Moonlight Graham]

Correct me if I'm ignorant on this but wasn't a PQ majority forecast?

Depends which media's propaganda you listen to.

[kimmy]

The expectation of a PQ majority was the reason Marois called an early election in the first place. And it seemed likely until that dude put his foot in his mouth re:separation.

Does it say something about separatism that a separatist party lost the election by talking openly about separatism?

-k

[Big Guy]

The election has just shown that separatism has separated from the Quebec voter agenda. Good riddance.

[Moonlight Graham]

Marois didn't even win her seat.

[guyser]

Does it say something about separatism that a separatist party lost the election by talking openly about separatism?

-k

says a lot ....hopefully

[Topaz]

I heard the former leader of the Bloc on TV and he said that Quebec can have separation but it has to be friendly towards it's neighbour and if the next generation wants it, its up to them.

[Smallc]

Well, they don't seem to want it.

[Rue]

I don't think Quebec seperatism is dead. . Its just in a massive transition. The Quebec identity is trying to reinvent itself. Piladeau is going to take over the PQ party and revive it as the construction scandals come back to haunt the Liberals in Quebec. Marois blew it by threatening a referendum. Quebecers love to be seperatist as long as they don't have to actually seperate. That's the whole thing about it. As long as they feel no one will call their bluff about seperating they love to threaten to seperate.

We had a guy on the Montreal Canadiens who typifies how it works. His name was Claude Larose. He would always threaten to fight someone if the referee was standing there between him and the other player. If there was no referee in front of him, he would never threaten to fight.

Seperatists are just like that. Big talkers when nothing is on the line.

[guyser]

Piladeau is going to take over the PQ party and revive it as the construction scandals come back to haunt the Liberals in Quebec.

Considering the PQ cant stand his politics and outlook I doubt that could ever happen.

[idealisttotheend]

The PQ was arrogant and stupid. They should have ran against the Liberal record, the corruption inquiry and the fact that the Liberals had been in power for too long. They would have won in a landslide. Instead they moved the campaign to sovereignty and that godawful charter and got slaughtered. It warms my heart though to know that the appeal to cheap nationalism (ie Quebec nationalism) didn't work, it works far too often in far too many elections around the world (think of the rise of the fascists currently in Europe or Milosevic/Serbia prior to the end of Yugoslavia -- though the PQ is neither fascist nor genocidal).

Whether the PQ will wither or not remains to be seen. If we have learned one thing about Quebec politics since the great NDP win of 2011 and now this come from nowhere Liberal majority is that anything can happen in Quebec politics (the polar opposite of Alberta)....

[Rue]

Guyser the PQ actually loves him. He is extremely popular within the PQ ranks.

It was actually Marois they could not stand.

The silence during the campaign and lack of support for her by Bouchard, Duceppes and Parizeau was based on old animosity with her.

She tried to placate them by bringing in Piladeau their prize boy but it was too little too late.

Madame Marois was a very blunt and rude opponent and politician and burned many bridges within her part as a cabinet Minister for . Bouchard, Duceppes,Parizeau , Bouchard all hate her. They all like Piladeau.

They see him as the role model separatist. They want someone strong in both business reputation and separatism. He in fact fits the bill. Referendum talk is highly unpopular with Quebecers but not actual separatists who see the PQ as a sell out party.

The people you saw turn on the PQ and did not vote for them are actually old time Union Nationalists who have been without a party for years and hate the liberals and moved into the PQ tent but are not hard core separatists. They swing back and forth between pQ and Liberal.

They have voted PQ but they are not true separatists.

In fact true separatists who do not believe in couching the referendum or avoiding talk on it are still there and will always be there.

The illusion there are a lot of separatists was puffed up by the Union Nationalists and old time Social Creditists both flocking to the PQ but both are anything but left wingers and are totally distinct from the left wing side of the party which was a coalition of labour unions and some very small and militant Marxist groups. Mulcair sucks up to the PQ because of its strong support from trade unions.

The PQ only came to be as a party because of Rene Levesque a consummate diplomat managing to balance the two rumps under the same roof.

Once Levesque died Parizeau could not do it, Bouchard could but Bouchard deep inside was not a separatist just a Union Nationalist. and he moved to California. Sound like a separatist to you?

Union Nationalists want as much as possible out of the confederation without having to separate. True separatists don't want a half assed separatism. They want the real thing.

So Marois is stil a hero to separatists just not to the Union Nationalists who will quickly go the way the wind blows and flock to the liberals if they think the referendum talk gets too serious.

This pendulum of the PQ losing votes talking referendum to directly has been going on since Levesque created the party and tried his best to tone down the referendum question every time it was asked so he could get re-elected. Until he watered down the referendum to make it sound like something other than true separatism he could not get sufficient votes from his Union National rump and its not an accident the son of a former UN Premier (Johnson) ran the party after Levesque and then Bouchard a federal Tory later ran it. Marois was the only true separatist left in the upper ranks. Piladeau wants the PQ leadership and will be given it.

He will rebuild the party and the upcoming construction scandal will humiliate the Liberals who will stay in power the max 5 years and then its quite possible Piladeau is back winning or he gets bored within a year and leaves the party busted.He won't resist being its saviour for now. He has a big ego but like Bouchard his wife is English and he seems himself as an internationalist just using the Quebec identity as a way to pretext controlling Quebec as a captive market for business. He like most businessmen will soon realize just beinga Quebec tribal chief is no big deal. Not big enough for his ego anyways.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Rue

[Wilber]

Regarding separation, it is interesting to watch the process going on in Scotland. The people of the Shetland and Orkney islands don't seem to want any part of it and if Scotland separates, go their own way or stay with the UK. Scotland may not be as energy rich as it thinks. Quebec might do well to watch what is going on there.

[overthere]

Guyser the PQ actually loves him. He is extremely popular within the PQ ranks.

Do they really?

The rank and file, the core of support for the PQ are unions and in particular public servant unions. That reality has always hampered the PQ in managing the province when in power, they can't do anything to piss those people off.

Peladeau is a union busting cheapskate penny pinching capitalist.

It will be entertaining to see how those two reconcile and move the Republic of Quebec to greatness together.

Somebody will have some serious compromises to make

[guyser]

Do they really?

The rank and file, the core of support for the PQ are unions and in particular public servant unions. That reality has always hampered the PQ in managing the province when in power, they can't do anything to piss those people off.

Peladeau is a union busting cheapskate penny pinching capitalist.

Every talking head the night of the defeat said as much.

PKP is not anyone wants the run the PQ. Others may disagree.....but they would be wrong

Edited April 9, 2014 by Guyser2

[jbg]

The PQ was arrogant and stupid. They should have ran against the Liberal record, the corruption inquiry and the fact that the Liberals had been in power for too long. They would have won in a landslide. Instead they moved the campaign to sovereignty and that godawful charter and got slaughtered.

The PQ ran on a "good government" platform in 1976 and won. Come 1980 Levesque had to put separation into play since separation is the raison d'etre of the PQ. Same process leading to 1995. Also, same Liberal Premier, Bourassa, ousted by the PQ's. Rinse, wash, repeat. Even though good government is what got the Liberals turfed both times (apparently there was as much corruption and/or incompetence in both Bourassa mandates) any PQ government at some point has to seek separation. At least Marois and her candidates were candid about that and got slaughtered at the polls.

It warms my heart though to know that the appeal to cheap nationalism (ie Quebec nationalism) didn't work, it works far too often in far too many elections around the world (think of the rise of the fascists currently in Europe or Milosevic/Serbia prior to the end of Yugoslavia -- though the PQ is neither fascist nor genocidal).

The difference is that the French were very much partners with English-speakers in the Charlottetown convention. Quebec's standing as a breakaway republic or constitutional monarchy is far weaker. Czechoslovakia, for example, was a jammed-together marriage of disparate parts arbitrarily created at the Versaille conference that temporarily ended World War I. Ukraine was arbitrarily enlarged by Nikita Khrushchev. Yugoslavia was similarly an artificial creation of Balkan states not otherwise allocated.

Whether the PQ will wither or not remains to be seen. If we have learned one thing about Quebec politics since the great NDP win of 2011 and now this come from nowhere Liberal majority is that anything can happen in Quebec politics (the polar opposite of Alberta)....

Agreed. Alberta has had two major party transitions in the past, from the Liberals to the Social Credits in the late 1920s or early 1930s and to the Progressive Conservatives in the late 1960's or early 1970's. I'm not sure on those dates given my limited knowledge of Canada. Edited April 9, 2014 by jbg

[Rue]

Do they really?

The rank and file, the core of support for the PQ are unions and in particular public servant unions. That reality has always hampered the PQ in managing the province when in power, they can't do anything to piss those people off.

Peladeau is a union busting cheapskate penny pinching capitalist.

It will be entertaining to see how those two reconcile and move the Republic of Quebec to greatness together.

Somebody will have some serious compromises to make

Very good point. Among the left wing of the PQ you make a great point. Among the what I call right wing of the PQ he is being annointed. The real grass roots PQ would probably like you say find him an elitist prick but today the PQ is not just separatists anymore with socialist leanings-it also houses Union Nationalists when they are pissed off at the Liberals and Quebecers turn on their ruling party within days of running a government. In Quebec politics is all about never being happy or satisfied. Complaining about the gov. in power is just a given no matter who it is.

Its a schism for sure between the left and right in the party. Drainville might still want to run but if Peladeau throws out his money and connections how can they stop him? Would a genuine socialist PQ person be able to stop him? Probably not.

If anything the crash of the PQ will cause chaos in the PQ short term but not too long. Within weeks of taking office the new Premier will be lambasted. Then again he is a brain surgeon and you need to be one to run Quebec. It needs a brain transplant.

[overthere]

Very good point. Among the left wing of the PQ you make a great point. Among the what I call right wing of the PQ he is being annointed. The real grass roots PQ would probably like you say find him an elitist prick but today the PQ is not just separatists anymore with socialist leanings-it also houses Union Nationalists when they are pissed off at the Liberals and Quebecers turn on their ruling party within days of running a government. In Quebec politics is all about never being happy or satisfied. Complaining about the gov. in power is just a given no matter who it is.

Its a schism for sure between the left and right in the party. Drainville might still want to run but if Peladeau throws out his money and connections how can they stop him? Would a genuine socialist PQ person be able to stop him? Probably not.

If anything the crash of the PQ will cause chaos in the PQ short term but not too long. Within weeks of taking office the new Premier will be lambasted. Then again he is a brain surgeon and you need to be one to run Quebec. It needs a brain transplant.

The dilemma of the oldschool leftist PQs- they want to love Peladeau but are revolted by him at the same time- reminds me of the eternal strife within the national NDP.

They know they have to move to the center to get elected, but cannot get away from their grassroots folks who won't have it.

[idealisttotheend]

The difference is that the French were very much partners with English-speakers in the Charlottetown convention. Quebec's standing as a breakaway republic or constitutional monarchy is far weaker. Czechoslovakia, for example, was a jammed-together marriage of disparate parts arbitrarily created at the Versaille conference that temporarily ended World War I. Ukraine was arbitrarily enlarged by Nikita Khrushchev. Yugoslavia was similarly an artificial creation of Balkan states not otherwise allocated.

I thought about it and you are absolutely right, Confederation wasn't forced on Quebec (then Lower Canada), they were equal partners. As to Charlottetown, I don't think that would have stopped the separatists anyway.... in fact it might just have emboldened them with talk of nation status.

You are right we here Alberta have had but three changes of government, United Farmers in '21, the Social Credit in '35 and Lougheed's Progressive Conservatives in '71.

For the record... I think there should be a law that a no vote means no for fifty years, not "until the next referendum," might be a nice addendum to the Clarity Act if we ever get federalists with guts in Ottawa again (like PET).

Edited April 11, 2014 by idealisttotheend

[August1991]

We had a guy on the Montreal Canadiens who typifies how it works. His name was Claude Larose. He would always threaten to fight someone if the referee was standing there between him and the other player. If there was no referee in front of him, he would never threaten to fight.

Seperatists are just like that. Big talkers when nothing is on the line.

Rue, you make the common mistake of reducing the actions of millons of people to the actions of a single person. Individual choice and group choice are two fundamentally different things.

In Quebec, there are a million or more people who favour complete independence: borders, passports, money, whatever. Many of these people would like to negotiate with ROC the way that Norway negotiates with Sweden.

Unfortunately, these million or so honest people cannot convince enough of their fellow citizens of this sovereignty idea to get a referendum passed. This is not a single psychopath playing a game for advantage; these are honest, good people who are frustrated.

Edited April 11, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

The PQ was arrogant and stupid. They should have ran against the Liberal record, the corruption inquiry and the fact that the Liberals had been in power for too long. They would have won in a landslide. Instead they moved the campaign to sovereignty and that godawful charter and got slaughtered.

"...moved the campaign to sovereignty... " WTF?

In this thread, Kimmy asked (sarcastically/rhetorically) why a separatist party would lose votes promoting separatism. In another thread, the American jbg (supposedly ignorant of Canadian politics) asked a similar question - without the Kimmy bravado.

idealisttotheend, Article 1 of the PQ constitution is to "réaliser la souveraineté du Québec".

=====

As to the "godawful charter", a major point in the campaign was the first debate when it became clear that with minor adjustments, all parties would have agreed to it.

IOW, the PQ pursued this specific charter for electoral reasons (to win votes). Yet, many Quebecers agree with the charter in principle.

The blogger Kate McMillan/smalldeadanimals referred to the Charter as "pushback". If people still speak French in North America some 250 years after a conquest (or people still speak Bulgarian in the Rhodopi mountains), pushback is only one of many methods to face the future.

Edited April 11, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

I thought about it and you are absolutely right, Confederation wasn't forced on Quebec (then Lower Canada), they were equal partners.

In 1760, a British general launched cannons and destroyed Quebec City. His troops burned villages and houses along the St-Lawrence River. In 1763, the people of Canada were transferred to a foreign State without their choice.

The 1867 confederation wasn't "forced on Quebec"?[/rhetorical question] In 1867, French-speaking Catholics made the best of a bad situation.

For the record... I think there should be a law that a no vote means no for fifty years, not "until the next referendum," might be a nice addendum to the Clarity Act if we ever get federalists with guts in Ottawa again (like PET).

PET in fact said that federalism is a referendum everyday. By this, he meant that - unlike a State based on race - a federal State is a concious choice of individuals to live together. Edited April 11, 2014 by August1991