Whither the Parti Québécois?

[August1991]

Will the PQ exist in 5 years?

The five stages of death: denial, anger, negotiation, depression, acceptance.

At present, most Quebec nationalists are in denial - Drainville seems angry. Lisee is in to negotiation. Gilles Vigneault - a poet - is already at depression.

What is acceptance?

I dunno. At present, some current nationalist thinking is that the PQ is a party of baby-boomers. Quebec independence will require another method than the PQ to achieve this goal.

Edited April 11, 2014 by August1991

[idealisttotheend]

(many apologies for the mess, I have yet to master the multiquote function...)

August said:

"...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".

I understand that the PQ is soveriegntist but election campaigns are fought on which part of your platform you emphasize rather than the entirety of the platform, (modern campaigns will roll out the "big 5" ideas they emphaize during the campaign etc.). The PQ only talks about sovereignty when they feel assured of a win (even in referendums when they add all kinds of conditions like monetary union, open borders with Canada etc.) This campaign the PQ spent the first half of the campaign doing that and the second half backtracking to other issues.

Kimmy and jbg's points are well taken, but history is littered with governments who pick and choose what to say in an election campaign and what they really intend to do (Harper in 2011 was going to govern "for all Canadians" (ha!) the federal Liberals were notorious for running to the left and then governing from the right). Election campaigns are more about what you appear to be than what you are... more than usual in politics.

August said:

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.

I agree that Quebec SHOULD and MUST take steps to maintain and protect its French character and language, but the occasional hijab on a nurse is no threat to that character and language. The charter smacks of racism, cheap nationalism and is an affront to, not a protection of, individual rights. It is, quite simply, un-Canadian.

August said:

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.

Yes Wolfe beat Montcalm at the Plains of Abraham, and then France gave away its colony in a treaty with Britian but things change, those people in 1760 took that land from indigenous peoples (not always nicely) and I doubt would have given it back to the natives because of it. One indigenous tribe took it from another before that I am sure. Later we have to live together whether we like it or not, and "we" had nothing to do with beating "them" in some ancient war. Having said that, maybe 150 years later an independent Quebec makes sense, (I don't think so), things as I said change, but the point is that the French have been well treated within Canada and have no real actual "national grievances" against the federal state outside of said Seven Years' War.

August said:

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.

Like the PET quote, but it is pie in the sky theory, in practically a referendum everyday would be chaos. We may choose to live together everyday, but we do so within institutions (like countries, legislatures and provinces) that must occasionally change but mostly must be stable. A "No" Vote should mean as much as a Yes vote.

Edited April 11, 2014 by idealisttotheend

[jbg]

Like the PET quote, but it is pie in the sky theory, in practically a referendum everyday would be chaos. We may choose to live together everyday, but we do so within institutions (like countries, legislatures and provinces) that must occasionally change but mostly must be stable. A "No" Vote should mean as much as a Yes vote.

The problem with modern-day political correctness is that stirrignthe pot has no consequences. If they got independence they'd have their hands out for "aid" or "compensation" from somewhere, the U.N., the U.S. or the ROC. If independence meant true independence no one would be in favor. Ditto the ex-colonies of Africa and Asia. Edited April 14, 2014 by jbg

[August1991]

I understand that the PQ is soveriegntist but election campaigns are fought on which part of your platform you emphasize....

Idealist, I read the rest of your (interesting) post but you've captured the PQ's problem at the start.

In 1980, the PQ tried étapisme - "un mandat de négocier". (In fact, that's how the PQ got elected in 1976 - along with "winning conditions", or a corrupt/tired federalist party in power.) This didn't work.

So then, the PQ tried in 1995 "un homard dans l'eau bouillante/cage à homard". The idea was to get a positive referendum result with the chance of negotiation, but then simply declare independence if the negotiation fails. This didn't work, although it came close. (Meech Lake's fail gave Parizeau "winning conditions", helped by Bouchard.)

In 2014, the PQ tried "wedge politics". The idea was to define Quebecers using a "popular" charter of values (popular since 60% or more would accept), and then provoke a crisis with federal authorities (eg. federal Supreme Court) to create "winning conditions" since a federal institution would oppose the Quebec charter. It would then be Team A vs. Team B, and then the PQ could go to the lobster strategy.

IMHO, this third 2014 strategy was very smart. But Quebec nationalists are sometimes too smart by half.

===

First lesson for federalists in ROC: don't get involved in stupid Team A vs Team B situations. (Like King, Harper smartly avoided this with his reconnaissance de la nation canadienne-française.)

Next lesson, the PQ - after 3 failures - is in the process of looking for a new option. At present, there are two further options considered:

First: Go for broke and declare, "We want a country." Promote sovereignty, talk about it, remind young people. (IMV, political suicide but what do I know.)

Second: Véronique Hivon. In this option, the PQ becomes a reasonable party - that wants an independent country. (As anglos say: More of the same old, same old... )

Edited May 8, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

As Jean-Francois Lisee noted in his blog, about 45% of people living in Quebec are strongly attached to Canada and will vote for any federal option - call this Team B. (Anglos, allophone, West Island, assimilés, de service... )

About 30% of people living in Quebec strongly want an independent country - call this Team A.

Between these two groups, there are about 25% of people who change their opinion.

At present, the PQ can't even get the 30%. In the last election, like the BQ, it got about 25%. Recent polls show the PQ at 20%, like the BQ now.

====

The Cirque du Soleil still has a good brand name.

IMV, the PQ and BQ brand names, like Eaton's, are destroyed/finished. No one goes there anymore.

Quebec nationalists will use another vehicle: QS, ON? Doubt it, dunno. But I don't think it will be the PQ or BQ.

Edited May 8, 2014 by August1991