Cognitive dissonance is the coexistence, in an individual or an institution, of elements which do not agree and which require constant, sometimes nagging, often inconclusive effort to reconcile them.
This disorder was cut with a knife last Monday evening, during the debate between three united candidates: the deputies Christine Labrie and Ruba Ghazal and the former deputy Émilise Lessard-Therrien.
During an exchange, Mme Ghazal, who has made promoting independence her priority, expressed regret that the issue was glossed over during last year’s campaign. She turned to Christine Labrie, who believes that independence, although desirable, is not a priority. Wanting to mark this difference, Mme Ghazal asked him if, during the next campaign, Mme Labrie would consider it necessary to make an outing on the subject. The latter retorted: it is the members who decide on the electoral platform, so it is up to them to decide.
She is absolutely right. These three excellent politicians are not seeking the mandate to propose directions or rewrite the party’s program or strategy. No way. They wish to become co-spokespersons. Martin Matte, spokesperson for Maxi, certainly has a real influence on the making of advertising. But the brand doesn’t care at all about its opinion on the organization of stores, the expansion strategy, the setting of prices.
Am I exaggerating? We must always return to the text. According to the statutes of Québec solidaire, co-spokespersons must “represent the party”, “express the positions of the party” towards other groups and the media. As this is a bit thin, they are also asked to “steer the party’s interventions in the National Assembly” and “coordinate solidarity with social movements”.
Listening to the three candidates on Monday, I had the impression that they found this corset a little tight. That they were eager to “coordinate the development and implementation of the party’s political and electoral strategy”. That they wanted to become the one who “leads and convenes the Strategy Committee” in order to “ensure the coherence of all the party’s activities”. Too bad for them, these elements are missing from their task definition. They appear elsewhere: in the mandate of the party president. (Question: Name me the candidates in the last race for the presidency of QS. You don’t know? So, the name of the winner? Missed, it was a winner, now replaced by an interim. There is only ‘a candidate for the position, which will be filled at the congress at the end of the month.)
Mind you, we understand them for not running for president. We almost never see that one. She is not in the National Assembly and gives few interviews. Those who want to change the world usually want to be heard. I am not suggesting that co-spokespeople have no power of influence. Around the table of the Coordination Committee, the governing body, which I like to call the “Politburo”, they hold 2 of the 14 seats. As such, they can make proposals, participate in the debate, and influence the decision.
I have no doubt that the legitimacy given to them by an election, especially if it was contested, makes them strong voices in this forum. But they do not direct the debates or set the priorities. You have to get up early, at the executive of the PQ, the PLQ or the CAQ, to put the leader in the minority during a debate, even behind closed doors. The spokesperson ? We don’t care.
This is why it is so strange that in the debate the other day, the three candidates made proposals on the future directions of the party. Christine Labrie criticized the fact that QS is content to refer to a future constituent the task of defining what a sovereign Quebec would be. The party should have its vision of the country of Quebec, she explained. She was rebuffed by Manon Massé, outgoing spokesperson, who seems to have understood, with experience, that when you hold the pencil in someone else’s name, you don’t draw outside the lines .
Ruba Ghazal even released a platform. A platform ? For a spokesperson? This should, in itself, be grounds for disqualification. It is not the role of a spokesperson to offer guidance to decision-makers. Besides, why did the debate moderator ask questions about the issues? The entire discussion should have been about: how will you go about speaking out well? What are your qualities as a communicator? Do you know how to use wooden language?
The answer to the latter question was, obviously, no. Mme Therrien dared to say he was worried about the “ceiling” the party has suffered since 2018. (QS received 16% of the vote in 2018, 15.5% in 2022 and is at 15% in the latest Léger-Québecor poll.) She should take lessons from the solidarity parliamentary leader, Alexandre Leduc, who said the morning of the publication of the last poll: “Well, I refuse the postulate of the ceiling, there. I don’t think we’re plateauing. » A journalist took the plunge: “Do you think you are declining? » Leduc dodged. He would make a good spokesperson.
I understand these three women for not being able to stop thinking. What they want, deep down, is to be a boss. Or, at least, co-heads. To be honest, I approve of them. The structure of QS — perhaps I’ve mentioned this in the past — is fundamentally misleading to the public. It is also twisted for the party itself.
We are being told that a reform of the statutes will take place next year. Will this be an opportunity to review this formal flaw and transform the co-spokespeople into co-leaders? The party refuses to say whether proposals in this direction have come from above or whether this avenue is being considered. Internally, I am told that the question of co-spokespersons is not part of the discussions, at least for the moment.
It would be a shame. Come on, comrades, mobilize, it’s the good fight!
Jean-François Lisée led the PQ from 2016 to 2018. He has just published Through the mouth of my pencils published by Somme Tout/Le Devoir. [email protected].