I don’t know if it’s the caquiste blue sparkle wallpapered wall to wall in Quebec that’s blinding us, but it seems to me that we’ve turned the page a bit quickly on François Legault’s very heartfelt statement on the eve of the unveiling of his office.
Posted yesterday at 10:00 a.m.
The PM, very fit, had nevertheless put a lot of faith and strength into it. Here are his words: “I don’t tolerate any bickering in the family. In private, in caucus, we can say anything to each other, but when we leave the caucus, we are a united block, impossible to cross. The message seems crystal clear. Apparent dissent will not be tolerated in public among CAQ members. The case is heard, let’s move on to another subject.
Yet there is much to read in this statement by the boss.
The CAQ, 90 deputies, is a COALITION. Yes, there will be dissenting voices, but isn’t that the very nature of a coalition, and not only in private? Why insist at all costs on presenting a flawless caucus image? You are in the majority, the oppositions are broken; it could be healthy for opposition, at the very least, to come from within, to move the lines, to advance ideas, even those that would shake up the CAQ establishment. Otherwise what ? Is the management of François Legault so touchy about appearances? This sentence should ask us about the nature of the power of a few at the CAQ. Authoritarianism under a benevolent smile.
We want to say to the PM: be tolerant, magnanimous. See the richness of the discussion, know how to take advantage of the opposition in your ranks. She is an engine, not a flaw.
It is the disturbing ones and their audacious ideas that will make you strong over time. In a coalition, it may be that a few exceed, recoil, stand out. They are the ones who could challenge power, almost as much as a fragile opposition in the National Assembly.
There is also, in the sentence of the PM, this famous fear of chicanery. A historical argument, in a way. The famous QUEBEC CONSENSUS. We hate chicanery, for the same reasons we avoid debate. “No chicanery in my cabin. However, these last few years have shown us that the famous consensus is much less consensual than it seems, that it is breaking down on all sides, on questions of language, identity, Montreal vs. the regions, classes social, to name but a few.
So, what is this famous quibble? Is it a trivial and colorful word to disqualify enlightened arguments, doubts, good questions?
And if said chicanery was the expression of diverse voices, of contrasting points of view, of democracy, in short?
Without shock of ideas – the chicane! – it suffocates, the rage growls, the climate rots. The chicanery could even be seen as the healthy expression of a vigorous democracy, in a society… or a party.
If the PM does not tolerate dissent in his troops, at home, at home, obsessed with a vision of democratic cleanliness, how will he react to what is sure to happen in the coming years? How will he tolerate the calls for a demonstration by a Duhaime, excluded from the debates, or the off-the-beaten-path actions of a Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, for example? How far will he minimize their significance and their symbolic weight?
Consensus, the social expression of no chicanery, has perhaps historically already served Quebec. He was a protection, a survival tool. This body unity has long been a way of forming a common front against a threatening outside world, the risk of assimilation, a way of appearing distinct in our faith and our language. Today, it cracks everywhere. Perhaps because Quebec is more confident, more open, that it participates in the march of ideas, with all the clashes and frictions that entails. This is not bad news in itself.
Let me be well understood. Nobody likes chicane for chicane. But it is abused by calling CHICANE any desire to change the rules.
Consensus cannot be maintained by force or magic. And this, neither in a party nor in a society. You can repeat the “Quebec consensus” mantra 100 times; if reality belies your incantation, you shop for trouble. By becoming the self-proclaimed guardian of the consensus at the CAQ and in Quebec, the PM who did not like chicanery is flirting with… trouble.