Everywhere and at all times, societies have felt the need to vent their anger on an individual, or an organization, whom we agree to hold responsible for all wrongs. This collective reflex has a unifying function within the group, it is said.
It is in Leviticus that we find the origin of the expression “scapegoat”. It is said that God asked Aaron to choose a goat and place on its head all the sins committed by the children of Israel, before driving it into the desert.
Politicians are prime candidates to play this role. Voters prefer to reproach them for having misused the power they have entrusted to them rather than admitting to having lacked judgment themselves in electing them.
While some are almost deified, others are doomed to hatred, even public scorn. It can even happen that they are both one and the other in turn. In 1976, it was said of Robert Bourassa that he was “the most hated man in Quebec”, so much so that he felt the need to go into exile in Europe for a few years. Today, we are full of praise for him.
For the past ten years, it has been Jean Charest that we have liked to hate, to the point of rejoicing in his misfortunes, such as his disappointment in the race for leadership of the Conservative Party. Unlike Mr. Bourassa, we do not see the day when he could be rehabilitated, outside the circle of his admirers in the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), he who recalls the now bygone era when the latter could still stand see it as “the natural party of government”.
Prime Minister Legault was offended that the leader of the Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, compared him to his Liberal predecessor. “Is there anything more insulting than being called Jean Charest? » he said.
However, Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon had simply emphasized that in reaction to the year one budget published by his party, he had adopted the same arguments that Mr. Charest had used when he himself had published his study on the finances of a sovereign Quebec in 2005.
This is not the reason why the former prime minister left such a bad memory. At the time, we were even pleasantly surprised to hear him say that an independent Quebec would be perfectly viable.
The alleged indignation of Mr. Legault, who had praised the “courage” of Mr. Charest during the inauguration of La Romaine, barely two weeks ago, however allowed him to divert the debate.
He did not have to explain too long on the reasons which made him now find federalism so advantageous, whereas he was once so impatient to see Quebec become a sovereign state, to which he predicted the greatest prosperity. .
Suddenly, the most important thing was to know who, him or Mr. Charest, should feel more insulted. The Liberals, led by Antoine Dionne Charest, joined in and the year one budget was quickly forgotten.
Mr. Legault found an unexpected ally in the person of Amir Khadir, who returned during his visit to The joust, Wednesday, on the financing methods of the PLQ at the time when Mr. Charest was its leader with a virulence which stunned the two other panelists, as well as the host, who tried in vain to bring him to more of moderation. The show is now nowhere to be found on the web.
If Lafontaine’s donkey was the least guilty of the animals sick with the plague, the same certainly cannot be said of Jean Charest. Despite the fishtail end of the Charbonneau commission and the abandonment of the UPAC investigation into the financing of the PLQ, he is still criticized for the perversion of our political morals.
A scapegoat need not be innocent. A culprit might as well do the trick. It even has the advantage that one can overwhelm it without feeling the slightest remorse.
The role of the scapegoat within a group or society has been the subject of numerous studies and theories, whether in anthropology, psychoanalysis or philosophy. It is not only attributed to it unifying virtues, allowing us to hate in unison, but the rejection of all faults on an individual also allows us to avoid collective questioning.
Continuing to shout insults about Charest more than ten years after his departure can still serve as an outlet, but it does nothing to solve the problems that Quebec is experiencing.