Refocusing is always a delicate operation. Talk to Erin O’Toole, who still can’t convince the Conservative base of the downsides of camping to extremes.
We cannot blame activists for defending their principles. In politics, however, it is necessary to know how to distinguish the possible and the desirable, under penalty of condemning oneself to impotence. Compromise is not necessarily synonymous with betrayal.
In 1974 it had been heartbreaking for the PQ to forgo the referendum election in favor of the referendum, but it paved the way for the victory of 1976. A posteriori, some will say that it was a mistake, since Quebec is still not independent, but it still allowed the adoption of law 101, that on the financing of political parties, agricultural zoning, anti-scab legislation, etc.
Manon Massé was right to say “Mission accomplished” at the end of the congress that Québec solidaire held at the end of last week. The political maturity shown by the activists is certainly auspicious.
The more realistic platform that was adopted may well be “the best in its history”, according to Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, who has modestly taken up Barack Obama’s slogan (“We are capable”), the power is still very strong. far. For the time being, it is above all from the PQ and the PLQ that QS can hope to win votes, which could very well favor the CAQ.
If Prime Minister Legault has done everything in recent months to present QS as his main opponent, it is obviously because he sees an advantage in creating a new polarization.
For half a century, the opposition between federalism and sovereignty made the political fortune of the “old parties”. Mr. Legault intends that the debate will henceforth take place between an “extreme center” identity nationalism and a “radical” and “wokist” left.
Even if the new QS platform is intended to be more reassuring, it will undoubtedly be a duty to recall that it is still written in its program that “Québec solidaire aims, in the long term, at the socialization of economic activities” by the nationalization of large companies. The only concession: “A certain place for the private sector will be maintained, particularly with regard to SMEs. “
This is not the economic model favored by the majority of Quebecers. It may be the “long-term” goal, but it cannot be ignored. Nor could we forget that independence was the PQ’s objective, even if the referendum was constantly postponed until the “winning conditions” were met. The platforms pass, but the program remains.
Of course, there is no mention of class struggle, but the Marxist inspiration of the text updated barely two years ago is evident. “The common good lies in the collective production and sharing of the wealth necessary to ensure the economic security of all”, we read.
On the issue of secularism, which Mr. Legault will not fail to exploit either, the position of QS remains a question mark. Would a united government leave Bill 21 at the mercy of the courts by abandoning the notwithstanding clause? The issue was not decided at Congress, but here is what the program says:
“It is the state that is secular, not individuals. Québec solidaire accepts the wearing of religious symbols by users of the services offered by the State. As far as State agents are concerned, the latter may wear them provided they do not serve as an instrument of proselytism and that the fact of wearing them does not in itself constitute a breach of their duty of confidentiality. “
Two years ago, activists disowned the parliamentary wing, which had decided that this passage was compatible with the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor commission to prohibit the wearing of religious symbols to agents of the State in position of authority.
When he was in the opposition, Mr. Legault hit the mark by accusing Philippe Couillard of trying to make Quebecers feel guilty by wanting to create a commission of inquiry into systemic racism and discrimination, as QS also proposes.
Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Last September, a Léger poll indicated that 61% of Quebecers now believe that systemic racism does indeed exist in Quebec. Rather, it is the Prime Minister who finds himself on slippery ground when the question is raised. Maybe it is a bit too far in the middle of the center!