The avalanche of texts and comments on Catherine Dorion’s essay The hotheads. Punk hope notebooks (Lux) aroused my curiosity. I spent a year and a half examining Louise Harel’s journey to writing the biography Without compromise (Éditions La Presse) and I wondered if there were connections in the journey of these two women who wanted to do politics differently.
Two rebellious activists
In the 1970s, Louise Harel, PQ activist and president of Montréal-Centre, was considered by some to be a rebel. In 1979, in her speech to become vice-president of the party, she declared: “ […] discipline must not become synonymous with silence and immobility. […] the party is not the government. He must inspire him, support him, applaud him, but never lose his autonomy in front of him. »
Once elected, she denounces the dictatorship of the party line. She is outraged to see colleagues vote for a bill without knowing what it is. She went so far as to vote against her own government during the study of the law which imposes working conditions on state workers after the referendum. This gesture caused her to be ridiculed by her caucus colleagues and ostracized for a few months.
In 1987, she risked expulsion from the party for having questioned the leadership of Pierre Marc Johnson, with whom she had no more chemistry than Catherine Dorion had with Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, if we look at it. trust the story published this week.
But instead of rejecting conventions, Louise Harel decides to keep a cool head and judo with the traditions of parliamentarism, which will allow her to contribute to important reforms even when she was in opposition. In 1989, she decided to support the law on the division of family patrimony that the Liberals had presented at the end of the session, believing that it would die on the order paper before the election was called. She also participated in the imposing reform of the Civil Code led by the liberal Gil Rémillard.
The media
Most of Louise Harel’s political life took place before the arrival of social networks and the opinion media industry, which helped to put a magnifying glass on phenomena that previously went unnoticed. The two women are dependent on their image, which is very different: Catherine Dorion, rebel with crude language, and Louise Harel, indocile with a soft voice, who can end an argument by throwing a past perfect subjunctive at you! But like Catherine Dorion, Louise Harel has been defined by the media.
In the 1970s, she was described as an enemy of René Lévesque. Political columnists already liked strong images. It sometimes contributes to this idea, but the reality is more nuanced. Louise Harel and René Lévesque agree on certain issues, that of openness to cultural minorities for example. He also named her Minister of Immigration in 1984.
In her book, Catherine Dorion denounces the media treatment given to her, while Louise Harel managed to create links with several journalists, with whom she could speak freely and in complete confidentiality about the issues that troubled her.
MPs
Reading Catherine Dorion’s essay, I learn that they apparently agree on one point: they respect their fundamental role as MPs on the ground. Both represent sectors where social issues are important and they have the same concern to act in a concrete way to improve the lot of their constituents. Louise Harel will also be able to rely on her in-depth knowledge of the field to carry out her social assistance reform, because she can put faces to the articles of law that she proposes.
What most distinguishes the two activists-turned-MPs is their approach to criticism. For Louise Harel, you have to agree to displease when you do politics. She said she carried the ideas and causes of those she represented, which allowed her to be impervious to personal criticism.
In Catherine Dorion’s mind, wearing a hoodie at the Salon Bleu also meant supporting a cause, but she did not succeed in detaching herself by depersonalizing the reactions she provoked. By wanting to break the codes, Catherine Dorion became her own cause.
To get through crises, Louise Harel said “we”. Catherine Dorion said “I”…
It’s a shame that the two women did not have the opportunity to meet in Parliament. Good transpartisan complicity would perhaps have made it possible to channel the energy of the member for Taschereau.