Posted yesterday at 5:00 p.m.
The American political system functioned relatively well during the 100 years following the Civil War of 1861 to 1865. The triggering event of the war was the election of Abraham Lincoln as president, hated by the (white) South, a Republican.
This the white South has not forgotten; so that after its defeat, the South will systematically vote on the Democratic side (the Solid South) for 100 years, with black people disenfranchised. The result was a hybrid Democratic Party, an unholy coalition of segregated white Southern voters and center-left (liberal) voters concentrated in urban centers and working-class northern neighborhoods. The Republican Party remained a traditional centre-right party, a coalition of business and rural conservatives. The two major parties were coalitions, pulled towards the center.
The great post-1960 partisan shift
This fine balance began to crumble in the 1960s with the rise of the civil rights movement supported by two Democratic presidents (Kennedy and Johnson), ending segregation and giving (at least in principle) the right black voting. White voters in the South, also the cradle of the Evangelical Churches, then massively switched to the Republican Party, pulling it to the right. The Democratic Party, now freed from its Southern burden, then slid further to the left to embody—in the minds of a certain electorate—absolute evil: an America without God, mixed race, socialist. The nightmare materialized in 2008 with the election of a black president with an Arab name, an intruder, an impostor. The democratic devil had shown his true face.
Donald Trump has skillfully exploited the fears of this America, in addition to introducing a dose of vitriol rarely seen before.
Sliding woke of the American left focused on redressing the wrongs of racism, away from the concerns of the (white) working classes, has only fueled the diabolical vision of the Democratic Party.
Blue-collar voters in the industrial cities of the Midwest will then massively switch to the Republican camp to finalize the partisan divide, now based not only on the traditional left-right division, but also on a cultural divide based on existential fears and so-called “moral” convictions. “. As soon as one of the two parties, or even worse, both, believes that they have the “moral” truth, compromise—the foundation of any functioning political system—becomes impossible.
This cultural war is taking place today against the background of a political system which, rather than calming things down, exacerbates them. There are lessons here for Quebec.
Three lessons
I see three lessons for Quebec democracy: the need for independent bodies; a simple electoral process; an ejectable and non-presidential executive power.
The current American drama demonstrates the importance of independent bodies, and perceived as such, for democracy.
Quebec democracy, heir like Canada to the British aristocratic model which distrusted the people, succeeds, in what is perhaps the ultimate paradox, in inspiring more confidence in the institutions of the State than the American model, in principle more democratic.
Think of the process for appointing our judges or of Radio-Canada, a public (albeit federal) broadcaster which, to my knowledge, continues to inspire confidence. The basis of this trust is independence, shielded (within reasonable limits) from politics and elected officials. The independence of the Quebec public service is part of the same tradition, unlike the United States where partisan appointments are more frequent. In the White House, almost everyone on staff is political.
The American experience also teaches us that complexity is the enemy of democracy, which is nowhere more true than for elections. Regardless of the changes we would like to make to our electoral system, the essential thing remains the confidence of citizens. Hence the importance, once again, of independent bodies for the supervision of elections, but also of simple ballots, easily understood by ordinary mortals and easily verifiable. Our first-past-the-post system is not perfect, but at least has the merit of producing a fluid political landscape where parties come and go and where political defectors are commonplace. The holding of separate federal, provincial and municipal elections also weakens partisan ties. The tradition of unaffiliated political parties at the municipal level is, in this sense, an asset for Quebec democracy, to be preserved.
One of the main flaws in the American presidential system, as we see it today, is to have fused the functions of head of government and head of state, the authoritarian temptation being never far away (imagine Trump back in 2024!). The lesson for Quebec is simple. Any change that would serve to presidentialize the office of prime minister and weaken accountability to the National Assembly should be carefully avoided. Finally, perhaps one day it will be necessary to rethink (restore!) the function of lieutenant-governor (by removing, if possible, the royal link) to clearly mark the distinction between head of government and head of state in the Quebec democracy.