These days we are witnessing a fascinating epistolary debate within Québec solidaire, where the “pragmatic” turn proposed by Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois is causing a stir comparable to those caused 40 years ago by the “beautiful risk” of René Lévesque.
To the letter from 40 activists, former candidates or employees of QS led by former MP Catherine Dorion, 80 GND supporters responded with another letter. The number of signatories is not accidental. In this showdown, the GND allies wanted to show that they are twice as numerous as the protesters. This may be the case, but the party is nonetheless on the verge of collapse.
“The different visions expressed are not incompatible,” affirms the group of 80 in the letter published Monday in The duty. Unless you want to bury your head in the sand, however, it is difficult to see how they could be reconciled.
Some saw incomprehensible gibberish in the text of the 40, which was published last week in The Press. It is true that the approach proposed to “reinvent our bankrupt democracy” and “reclaim this power head-on and bring it back to the people” is nebulous to say the least, but what is rejected is perfectly clear.
This goes well beyond the leadership style of a “skillful speaker” surrounded by a “small clique.” By agreeing to place its action within the framework of current parliamentarism, QS would be complicit in “this system of domination that it was created to combat”. In other words, GND and the supporters of a “modernization” of the party are sabotaging the necessary revolution.
Certainly, there have always been within QS, as in other left-wing parties around the world, differences on the nature of the party and on how to achieve its objectives, but these remained manageable as long as the parliamentary wing was reduced to one or two deputies who had to bend to the wishes of the activist base.
GND undoubtedly has a different conception of the role of spokesperson from that of Françoise David, Amir Khadir or Manon Massé, but the increase from 3 to 10 in the number of deputies was inevitably going to provoke a clash.
It would become impossible to participate in the work of the National Assembly if the only solution proposed was to break the system. Inevitably, if we want to help improve a bill or the functioning of an organization, we must accept certain compromises, in which some will rather see compromise.
The group of 40 proposes to “use a very large part of all the resources gained through the elections (our researchers, our communications people, our organizers, our budgets) to fuel the environmental and social struggles in Quebec”. Elected officials may have other views on their use.
At last November’s convention, the majority of delegates who supported the candidacy of Émilise Lessard-Therrien for the position of women’s spokesperson undoubtedly did so with the aim of promoting a breakthrough in the region, but they contributed in the same way. suddenly precipitated the crisis by providing a loudspeaker to the activists. Even if she had been more patient, it’s a safe bet that she would have come to the same conclusions.
Until the convention next November, it is the member for Sherbrooke, Christine Labrie, who will take over in the interim. His colleague from Mercier, Ruba Ghazal, who had been narrowly beaten by Mme Lessard-Therrien is the favorite to inherit the position permanently, but many are of the opinion that one of the two spokespersons should not be an MP.
The “declaration” which will be presented in ten days to the Saguenay National Council seems perfectly innocuous. But in the climate of distrust that has set in, any proposal coming from the party leadership will now be suspect.
At first glance, it is a good idea to simplify the QS program, which is almost 100 pages long and some proposals date back around fifteen years. We would rather like to make it a presentation of a “general political vision”, which is “free from overly specific political commitments”. These would be reserved for the platform written on the eve of each election.
In its current form, the program provides in particular as follows: “In addition to the mining sector, Québec solidaire recommends placing the large forestry industry under public control (majority participation of the State) by considering complete nationalization if necessary. »
Is it a “specific political commitment” or a reflection of a “general political vision”? The proposal that activists will be invited to adopt in Saguenay simply says that “Québec solidaire recognizes the central role of the forestry industry in the development of several regions of Quebec.”
For an activist, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, whereas a “government party” keen not to frighten voters wants to walk on these eggs.