Can “Autonomous” Quebec in Canada inspire “Eelam” within United Sri Lanka?
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
Canada’s Francophone majority province of Quebec went to polls a month ago on March 26th to elect a Provincial government . The Quebec Liberal party running Quebec since 2003 came first as expected. In fact Quebec premier Jean Charest called an election a year before it was due in anticipation of a major success. Charest’s liberals who got 46% of the total vote and 76 of 125 seats in 2003 did not fare that well as hoped 4 years later in spite of an early election.
[Quebec Assembly at Night - Photo By MMarsolais]
There were three major upsets.After 129 years the French – majority province elected a minority government to power. The Liberals with 33.1 % of the popular vote got only 48 seats in a legislature of 125. The last time this happened was in 1878. Secondly a third force came to the forefront in Quebec with the Mario Dumont led Action democratique du Quebec (ADQ) winning second place with 41 seats and 30. 8% of the vote.Thirdly Quebec’s separatist party the Parti Quebecois (PQ) suffered a major reversal and was pushed to third place with 36 seats and 28.3 % of the popular vote.
[Quebec premier Jean Charest]
When the Quebec national assembly was dissolved prior to polls the legislative tally was something like this.The Liberals had seventy – two seats; the PQ forty – five seats and the ADQ just five. There was one Independent and two vacancies. The Liberals have come down to earth from 72 to 48 while the ADQ has soared to dizzying heights from 5 to 41 an eightfold increase. The PQ came down to 36 from 45. Its popular vote of 28.3% was the lowest got by the PQ after 1970.
At time of elections being declared the Liberals were way ahead. But soon the PQ was running neck to neck. As campaigning continued the ADQ also surged ahead. Opinion polls suggested that all three parties were near equal in the three – way race.A poll taken on the eve of elections for a Canadian newspaper and TV station saw support for the PQ at 31% , the liberals at 30% and ADQ at 28%. A late resurgence saw the ADQ move ahead of PQ and run close to the Liberals.
[Mario Dumont led Action democratique du Quebec (ADQ)]
The ADQ increased its votes from 18.1% in 2003 to 30. 8% in 2007. The PQ dropped from 33.2 in 2003 to 28. 3% this year. The Liberals were down to 33. 1% from 45. 9 in 2003. It is not difficult to gauge where the ADQ got its new votes from. According to analysts the ADQ cashed in on voters discontented with both the Liberals and PQ.
The new youth vote also went substantially to the ADQ it is said. Many voters it is said knew fully well that the ADQ would not form a government but went ahead and registered votes for it as a protest against the traditional way of politics in the Province.Still the ADQ is now on the threshhold of power and eagerly awaiting the next poll.
“The sense is that at least in Montreal it was a protest vote rather than an affinity to Dumont or the ADQ ” says Antonia Maioni, political science professor at Montreal’s Mcgill university.”now what the ADQ has to do is to perform”she told Canada’s “Globe and Mail” newspaper.
[Andre Boisclair, of Parti Quebecois (PQ)]
Ever since the PQ emerged as a big player in the seventies Quebecoise politics has seen a see – saw struggle between the parties espousing secessionism and those opposing it. Interestingly those defending Canada’s territorial integrity are generally called Federalists while those wanting to separate are loosely termed Sovereigntists.
This is because the Quebec versions of English dominated national parties like the Liberals and Conservatives advocated a greater strenghening of Federalism as a means to contain French separatism and preserve Canada’s unity whereas the separatist PQ couched its secessionism in the demand for a Sovereignty – Association. Thus Federalists are for unity and Sovereigntists want separatism within the Quebec context.
This is in striking contrast to Sri Lanka where those advocating Federalism are charged of conspiring to break up the Country and those riding the high horse of patriotism claiming to be safeguarding Sovereignty. So Federalists in Sri Lanka are unfairly described as separatists and those rigidlly upholding Sovereignty are praised by fellow travellers as patriots preserving unity.
This is because political discourse in Sri Lanka has been clouded with confusion on questions like federalism, devolution, power – sharing, sovereignty etc. A strong, powerful majoritarian lobby equates unity with unitary and refuses to see the merits of unity in diversity. The concept of shared sovereignty is anathema. So Federalism and Sovereignty acquire diametrically opposite meanings in Quebec and Sri Lanka.
This columnist was part of a Sri Lankan media delegation study tour of power sharing in Canada during February – March this year. It was organized by the Forum of Federations in Ottawa and the Canadian High Commission in Colombo. We were in Montreal and Quebec city in early march when the election campaign was in progress.Hoardings and posters were everywhere.
This columnist tried on a modest scale to find which way the wind was blowing. Questions were put privately and in a few instances publicly to the various academics, public servants, professionals and journalists about who they thought was the favourite in electoral stakes. The proverbial franc was proffered for Francophone thoughts on the topic to others like waiters in restaurants, stewards, hotel clerks, taxidrivers, tour guides, coach drivers, souveneir shop attendants, shopkeepers etc also in order to fathom their opinion.
In a sense amateurishly limited “opinion polls” like this depend on who you talk to and where. Generally opinion was divided between the Liberals and PQ as favourites. Montreal was more for the liberals while Quebec city preferred the PQ. The ADQ seemed a non – entity in both Cities when compared to support for the other two.
I remember a taxi driver in Quebec point to posters with Liberal candidates resting their chins on their palms and derisively remark “if they cant even hold their heads high without propping it up how can they help keep the heads of Quebecoise high”? A sophisticated coach driver from Montreal rooting for the Liberals dismissed the PQ and ADQ as a “bunch of red necks from rural Quebec”.The Anglophones and allophones (Non – English, non – French) felt the Liberals were riding high.
It was indeed the Liberals who came first but the real winner was the ADQ. It is now the formal opposition in Quebec.It has set its sights on winning the next election.This party led by its youthful leader Mario Dumont was a dark horse when the race began. The ADQ was expected to fare better than 2003 but not to this extent. Besides there had been false hopes in 2003 where the ADQ was expected to do very well but ended up with only five seats.
This was another instance of distortions caused by the ” first past the post winner” voting system. This time however there was greater equity between votes polled and seats won by all three parties. The ADQ performed well beyond expectations. It won in rural Quebec, dented urban areas and even impacted on the “English Island of Montreal in the French sea of Quebec”.
Apart from winning in 41 seats the ADQ came second in another 44. While its victory margin was very narrow in seventeen seats the party also came quite close to winning in another twenty – one.
The ADQ now holds significant power in the National assembly. The minority Liberal government is dependent on it to stay in office. No party wants fresh elections in a hurry. But the ADQ will not be content to languish in opposition for long. It would like to gain power and form a government of its own in the future. It has a dynamic and ambitious leader now called “Super Mario” who will not play second fiddle for long.
University of Sherbrooke Political science teacher Jean – Hermann Guay told the “Globe and Mail” newspaper “The ADQ is very close to power. This is not a chance victory”.
“Tthe potential for growth for the ADQ is even stroger than we would have thought” University of Montreal political scientist Louis Massicotte told the same newspaper.
Laval University professor of Political science and a former ADQ president Guy La forest told “Globe and Mail” that the party had performed much better than expected. “they had a game plan for 95 ridings (electorates) and managed to be competitive in 90 out of 95 ridings” Laforest reportedly said.He further said “they accomplished a feat unique in Quebec or Canada. I dont know of a team so small, so poor and with so little resources achieved such an impressive result in an election. ”
Last month’s hustings saw the traditional political tussle between Federalists and Sovereigntists in Quebec undergoing a seismic change.The right of centre ADQ has beaten the separatist PQ to third place and emerged a close second to Quebec’s federalist Liberals. A third political force has risen in Quebec.More significantly the ADQ has brought into Quebec politics a third element – Autonomism.
The ADQ campaigned among other things on a platform of Autonomism. This policy is derived from concepts like autonomy or autonomous. It is a sort of middle way between the Federalist and Sovereigntist schools of thought. The ADQ is not for separatism. It does not want Quebec to secede. But it wants radical forms of power – sharing between Ottawa and Quebec. The idea is to obtain greater powers and autonomy for Quebec within a united Canada.
Against that backdrop Dumont’s success has been hailed as progress in English Canada. The PQ is seen as routed along with its plan of holding another referendum to determine Quebec’s status within or “outside” Canada. Since Dumont has denounced separatism the Federalists like to depict the ADQ as being in their camp. From that perspective the PQ or secessionists are outnumbered in Quebec.
But the French nationalists are not of the same mind. To them the ADQ is a party strongly opposed to the current federalist status quo. The PQ claims resonance with the ADQ objective of empowering Quebec and enhancing its strength. In that sense the ADQ success is seen as an overarching victory for the forces of Quebecoise nationalism.
Thus both sides perceive the ADQ to be one of “theirs” and combine the vote blocs to argue that together either side holds nearly two – thirds of Quebec votes. It is a variation of the ” door being half – open or half – shut “premise. In this case it is a “two – thirds shut or open”argument.
The irony is that the ADQ owes its success greatly to the disillusionment among traditional Liberal and PQ supporters. The voters wanted a change in the decades old federalism vs sovereigntist debate. The ADQ with its vision of a middle – way option “autonomism” signalled just that. Trying to draw in the ADQ to their respective folds therefore seems clumsy rather than astute politics by the Federal and Sovereigntist schools.
Relating a personal anecdote may be appropriate at this juncture. During our study tour the question of Quebec came up frequently while interacting with officials, academics, experts and opinion makers in English Canada. Many of them seemed a little impatient of it all and appeared not to take the issue too seriously. One “quip” purportedly sourced to an Anglophone stand – up comic was often related to us as being illustrative of Quebecoise sentiments.
” We want a strong and Independent Quebec within a united and powerful Canada” went the line evoking appreciative mirth among those quoting it.The one – liner portrayed Quebec separatism as an inherent contradiction .It was as if the Francophone nationalists want to both keep and eat their croissant.This “joke” was often repeated as being indicative of Quebec’s bona fides or lack of it on sovereignty. It was also demonstrative of how some sections in rest of Canada were dismissive of Quebecoise aspirations.
Some of us quoted this “joke” to a few Francophones while in Quebec province. They were not as amused as their English counterparts. Many politely declined to comment. A few smiled mechanically without any sign of seeing the humour in it. But it was a young academic from Laval University who provided meaningful insight during a lunch time conversation.
Initially he exploded angrily. “This is no joke” he remonstrated as his face reddened. “The ‘Anglaise’ do not understand our depths of feeling on this matter and by making fun of us are insulting us” he exclaimed. Later he mellowed and apologised for his outburst even as we explained profusely our ignorance in this and expressed regrets over being insensitive.
He then went on to explain in detail that the line “Independent Quebec within a united Canada” aptly summed up much of what many Quebec nationalists felt about the whole question. This was no contradiction in terms as perceived by some in English Canada but a much preferred serious option to many in French Canada.
” Many people here want to be very self – reliant and Quebec to function independently but they do not want to break from Canada either. This does not mean that they accept the present status quo but it also does not mean they want to go separately either. What they want is to be a strong Quebec inside Canada. But if this does not happen then some other course like full independence may become desirable”.
With the wisdom of hindsight it seems to me now that the young academic was actually articulating the mindset of what was the ADQ’s constituency. A whole lot of reasons are available for the ADQ’s sweeping gains. Chief among them is this desire on the part of many Quebec nationalists for the province to remain within Canada yet acquire much more powers and privileges. Dumont himself subscribes to this view. Thus the “Autonomist” cry struck a responsive chord among voters.
An autonomous Quebec within Canada was exactly the kind of “soft” nationalism many Quebecers wanted at this point of time. They were disillusioned by the recurring phenomena of referendae on the sovereignty question.. Besides the sovereigntist option is a leap into the unknown. Many are reluctant to take that plunge. The vague evasiveness of the PQ on certain aspects of this question has not helped much either.
The PQ contested this poll on the most radical platform of its history where its leader Andre Boisclair pledged to hold a referendum immediately after the poll.. Liberal premier Jean Charest counted on people being wary of another referendum and voting for him to prevent it..
What has happened is that the ADQ provided a third alternative to people who did not want to choose between federalism or sovereignty. They did not want a secessionist refrendum but also did not want to be seen as accepting Ottawa’s writ.Dupont’s autonomist platform of “affirmation without separation” reaped the harvest.
Dupont’s’s cry for autonomy is not anything new. Maurice Duplessis , the former Union nationale party premier of Quebec proposed “autonomism” as political credo in 1956.He argued for devolution of powers from Ottawa for Quebec and wanted to minimise Federal incursion into Provincial matters as far as possible. It is to Dumont’s credit that he has revived “Autonomism” as viable political ideology to this extent of success.
The ADQ leader Mario Dumont is a political animal of great charisma. Born on May 19th 1970 in Cacouna, Quebec , Dumont obtained a degree in economics from Concordia University in 1993.A protegee of Quebec’s former Liberal premier Robert Bourassa, Mario Dumont was president of Quebec Liberal ’s youth wing in 1990 – 92. The Meech lake accord ushered in during former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney envisaged special status for Quebec as a “distinct society” within Canada. That and and also the damage control exercise of Charlottetown failed due to opposition by some Provinces of “English” Canada.
This disappointment led to Dumont breaking from Liberals and forming together with Jean Allaire the ADQ in 1994. Later Dumont took charge of the party. He was first elected to Riviere – du – loup riding in 1994 and was re – elected again and again and again iin 1998 , 2003 and 2007.He was the lone ADQ legislator till 2003 when ADQ got five seats with nearly one – fifths of the vote. He is married to Marie Claude – Barrette and has three children Angela, Charles and Juliette.
Though Dumont is against sovereignty now there was a time when he supported it. During the 1995 referendum on the question Dumont was on the side of the Sovereigntists. He is a staunch nationalist whose vision coincides greatly with much of rural Canada. The 36 year old Dumont leads what has been virtually a “one – man show” in the past. He inherits with this election a caucus of young, untested colleagues who share his vision..
The last election was testimony to his vision and political acumen. By appealing to both ends of the spectrum with appropriate tactics Dumont has created a new, third constituency incorporating elements from both schools of thought. With both sides claiming the ADQ “soul” as theirs, it remains to be seen as to how Dumont will steer his ship through unchartered waters without veering to one or the other bank.
“He (Dumont) incarnates a nationalism that isn’t sovereigntist” Jean – Hermann Guat of Sherbrooke University told “Globe and Mail”.”it’s nationalism that wants to seeQuebec preserve its powers but not becessarily break away from Canada.It’s a more prudent kind of nationalism. Mr. Dumont plays both sides and in that sense, he resembles a lot of Quebeckers”, he said.
Laval University professor Guy Laforest described Mario Dumont thus to “Globe and Mail”. He (Dumont) is a Quebec nationalist leader. Some people in English Canada don’t like it and they would want him to embrace the concept of ‘one nation, one country’ but that will never happen”.
This strong assertiveness of Nationalism is what worries some . While articulating the soft nationalistic cry of “autonomism” Dumont has mixed his campaign with hard rhetoric about identity politics too. “we cannot defend the Quebecois identity with mushy words that no one understands.We cannot defend the Quebecois identity with one knee on the ground” he once famously said.
Two controversial aspects of his political agenda is the proposal to encourage more children among Francophones in Quebec and his emphasis on “reasonable accommodation” where the onus is on new immigrants and visible minorities to assimiliate in Quebec. People are also concerned about the ultimate implications of the ADQ goal of “an autonomous state of Quebec within Canada”. How will it evolve in the future?. Will the dream turn into a nightmare?
Others however are sceptical of Dumont. They feel that he has changed positions in the past and so is likely to do so in the future too. It would all depend on which stance would yield the most dividends politically is the cynical view. Of course practical politics does not make a virtue out of consistency but it appears that some are missing the “idealism” in Dumont’s constituency.
The future would therefore depend on how Dumont performs and retains his support base while maximising it further. If voters from Federal folds are to be drawn in the platform has to be more accommodative and flexible. If PQ votes are to be attracted a greater amount of hard – line radical policies are necessary. Laying the emphasis on one or the other is likely to repel support from contrarian blocs. How these contending factors will play out in the political arena and how “super”Mario Dumont creates a seemingly new “autonomist” school of thought will determine the ADQ’s future in Quebec politics.
How Dumont will negotiate an “autonomist” political future for Quebec will help greatly in resolving the simmering crisis of Canada. The ADQ will be the new experiment of exploring the potential of greater autonomy for Quebec within Canada. The concept of an “independent Quebec within a united Canada” is an alluring challenge.
Its success or failure could impact on Sri Lanka too. The Quebec demand for secession had a demonstrative effect in Sri Lanka as it was a rare if not unique instance of secessioinism within the so called first world. Later attempts to contain these separatist tendencies through Constitutional accommodation were made. They too were inspirational as possible models of Conflict resolution to emulate in Sri Lanka .
Now the advent of the ADQ has re- introduced another path which could be followed in Sri Lanka if found successful in Canada. While granting that the experience of one country may not be appropriate for another there is no need to reject anything outright without trying to elicit lessons either.
[Paul Chomedey, sieur de Maisonneuve (February 15, 1612 – September 9, 1676) was a French military officer and the founder of Montreal, Statue in Montreal]
The federalist – sovereigntist debate in Canada has received fresh impetus through the third factor of autonomism. In Sri Lanka a war rages while the feeble debate is about unitary versus separate. The third alternative of a federal or quasi – federal Constitution in place of both the one – state and two- state theories is yet to take off. The unitarists emphasising sovereignty depict “federalism” as a recipe for secession. Ironically the separatists perceive advocates of federalism among Tamils as traitors accepting Sinhala hegemony.
In this dark tunnel one can only imagine a tiny glow of light in the form of “autonomism” in Canada. If the ADQ could achieve something tangible for Quebec within Canada it could be an experience to draw on for Sri Lanka. If an autonomous Quebec is possible within a united Canada would it be too poetical to conjure up visions of an “autonomous Eelam within a united Sri Lanka”?.
Given the current climate of brutal conflict and passionate opposition to the very concept of devolution such notions seem fanciful. One cannot extend the silver lining to cover the dark cloud. But then was it not Alexander Pope who wrote of “hope springing eternal in the human breast” ? And then there is always the inspiring myth of Sisyphus and his rolling boulder!
transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com
transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com
47 comments April 28th, 2007