It has been a while since the anti-referendum argument of “just in case” was put to us. This is obviously explained by the fact that, for several years, the Parti Québécois (PQ) and the sovereignist option seemed on the verge of being wiped off the map.
Now that the PQ’s lead is consolidating in the polls and its leader, like Jacques Parizeau thirty years ago, refuses to try to save the goat and the cabbage, that is to say to aim sovereignty but being only a government party (of a province), the call for prudence is heard again: “Take power, dear PQists, since there is no doubt that you have the interests of Quebec at heart and that your boss lacks neither good ideas nor integrity, but do not go too far, because the best is the enemy of the good. »
In other words: “Let’s be masters of our own home, yes, but let’s not turn this desire into a referendum in case we lose it. »
Certainly, with a little more than a third of Quebecers who, for the moment, would be ready to vote Yes, there is still a long way to go – although reality can be surprising when you shake it up. This is without taking into account that it would most likely not be a referendum defeat without consequences. Well beyond the collective depression that would ensue, a wave of symbolic, political and legal contempt would overwhelm all Quebecers. History has taught us this. Here we find the heart of the argument.
Following the two lost referendums, the federal government first unilaterally repatriated the Constitution and modified it without the agreement of Quebec. Then he rushed to adopt a law on referendum clarity. Let us also not forget the tenacious contestation, on the part of federalists, of the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Quebec people and the State of Quebec (Bill 99) adopted in 2000 under the Bouchard government. , and that of Quebec linguistic laws in recent decades.
A leader of a party and, possibly one day, of a government who clearly displays his convictions and his game plan has the merit of playing fair. Saying what we are in politics for and what we will do once elected, it’s about respecting your fellow citizens, their intelligence and their freedom: “Here’s what you’re getting into if you vote for me and my party. You decide. »
What’s more, the posture, or ethics, adopted by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon will perhaps make it possible to prevent Quebecers from venturing too far, since a sufficient number of voters could refuse to do so. follow from the next election. The risks associated with the failure of a third referendum would thus be avoided. As if Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon was showing himself responsible by stating his convictions and sticking to them.
The real weakness of this argument, however, lies in the fact that it implicitly reveals the need to make Quebec a country without too much delay. This even comes close to an argument of the absurd in favor of restoring the referendum mechanism, since we say: “Let’s not hold a referendum, because, if we lose it, Canadians outside Quebec and their national government will harm us and despise us more. » Now, here, paradoxically, is a reason, if not the reason, to cut ties with Canada.
Indeed, if we cannot be both advantaged and ourselves within the federation, and even any desire to leave it democratically and on good terms turns against us, then let us be lucid and proud, and let us raise our hands. markers. It would even be a form of prudence to act in this way. “There is a time when quiet courage and daring become for a people, at key moments of its existence, the only form of suitable prudence,” said René Lévesque.
In short, when the impression crystallizes that a “strong Quebec within a united Canada” no longer wants and will mean nothing, as is currently the case, the only avenue remaining is to defend one’s convictions.