Often, for fun, the crew / Take albatrosses, vast sea birds, / Which follow, indolent traveling companions, / The ship gliding over the bitter abyss.
The Albatross by Charles Baudelaire has been on my mind for some time, as I observe the existential crisis shaking Québec solidaire (QS) and reflect on it. Actually no. The reflection is broader than that: it also includes all these more progressive women who are resigning one after another from municipal politics in recent times.
I have been evolving in an ecosystem of “engaged” young people, politically and socially, since the end of my adolescence. So I’ve seen several friends and acquaintances thinking about getting into politics in different parties, going there, loving or hating their experience, staying or leaving.
We can have elsewhere the crucial debate on the importance of changing things “from the inside” or “from the outside”. Today I want to talk to you about people who get involved in politics, on a human level.
I have met people who immediately felt at home in politics. Often, they are very extroverted personalities, who love to connect with people, who know how to be warm with strangers. They are also team workers, who have no difficulty rallying behind a group decision, even if, personally, they would have done things differently. These people derive greater pleasure from the feeling of belonging to the group than from the freest possible individual expression. They are also intellectually stimulated by the details of public policies. The precision of the debate on this or that amendment to a bill or regulation interests them.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the “albatrosses.”
Barely have they placed them on the boards, / Than these kings of the azure, clumsy and ashamed, / Pitifully let their large white wings / Like oars drag beside them.
Albatrosses have extremely creative personalities. They are often artists with overflowing imagination. This creative sense gives them ease with words and ideas. They have no equal in getting the people who listen to them to dream bigger, to stop taking the little irritants of everyday life for granted, to name the discomforts that are gnawing at the community and to denounce the injustices that cause them. These people thrive on authentic expression. This is what makes them so charismatic when they are free to speak for themselves. And often so unhappy within rigid partisan structures.
The sensitivity that allows them to grasp the collective mood makes them more vulnerable to the attacks from journalists that come with a stint in politics. The hypocrisy and bad faith that often reign in Parliament, particularly during a question period, will also be more likely to eat away even their vital energy.
This winged traveler, how clumsy and spineless he is! / Him, formerly so beautiful, that he is comical and ugly! / One teases his beak with a burner, / The other mimes, limping, the cripple who was flying!
We tend to recruit albatrosses into politics, because they were already strong voices in civil society, the arts, or the media, where they could fly freely. However, their light tends to diminish once they are busy changing things “from the inside”. Their originality no longer becomes a strength, but the target of attacks. When they leave, they come out hurt. And by hurting them, society loses voices that were crucial “outside” to change mentalities, open collective imaginations, broaden the horizon of political possibilities and allow people “inside” to present ideas. “pragmatic” way of increasingly radical ideas.
The Poet is like the prince of the clouds / Who haunts the storm and laughs at the archer; / Exiled to the ground amidst jeers, / His giant wings prevent him from walkingr.
I read with great interest Alexa Conradi’s open letter on the place of feminism in politics. I would add that feminist thought also allows us to understand the importance of the personal in social transformation.
I have witnessed with great pain discussions where we sought to push albatross towards politics. I say pain, because it is difficult to see people viewing their friends as instruments to be used for a cause, without concern for their well-being. It is even more painful to see future candidates see themselves as instruments for a cause, and normalize the idea that a stint in politics is a “sacrifice”.
The truth is that I have never seen anyone shine and contribute to their full potential to social change while perpetually being in “sacrifice”, on the edge of burnout. We all have a role to play — and it must be aligned with our personal strengths.
The paradox of Québec solidaire, among other political groups, is that by wanting to absorb all the progressive energy within it, we find ourselves undermining the vitality of social mobilizations and free voices which are all the more capable of transform Quebec if they are not constrained by the action of the National Assembly. The paradox is that the effectiveness of the solidarity strategy diminishes when these voices weaken.
There are certainly ways of doing things that would benefit from changing on the side of Québec solidaire — and in the National Assembly more generally — to make the bodies more “inclusive”. And some people will have to work on it. Others would instead benefit from rebuilding left-wing social movements outside of partisan politics. If everyone knows their strengths, everyone will also know better what fight they are made to fight.