Posted at 1:00 p.m.
A clarification to begin with: I agree with Jacques Beauchemin that identity nationalism, as described in the film I made, Battle for the soul of Quebecwould have benefited from better representativeness.
But it was still necessary that the tenors of the movement (Mario Dumont, Mathieu Bock-Côté, Bernard Drainville, Jean-François Lisée and Pauline Marois) agree to come and talk about it.
They all refused.
The documentary, moreover, faithfully respects the thought and trajectory of the main militant of “us”, Jacques Beauchemin, the one who convinced Pauline Marois to put this string to her bow.
Nor do I doubt the good intentions of Mr. Beauchemin or Mrs.me Marois in this identity shift – which has nevertheless bled the Parti Québécois, on the left as on the right, of its living forces. I want to believe that we wanted to be “inclusive” in their eyes.
The mistake was to think that you could change the meaning of this word by snapping your fingers.
In Quebec, the us has almost always meant the “historical Francophone majority,” as we like to call it today. That is to say not only the French-Canadian community, but the struggle of this community to remain francophone.
When René Lévesque speaks of “us others”, as has been emphasized a lot these days, that is also what he is talking about: the particular situation that is ours, Francophones of America.
If it is normal to want to keep this fight in memory, we must all the same be aware of what the “we”, like the past that it invokes, carries – at least, if we want to address the whole Quebecers.
Who could forget, moreover, the famous “Do you want to talk about us!” launched by Jacques Parizeau on the evening of the referendum?
As Jacques Beauchemin himself says in the film, this “we” invoked exclusion and not inclusion.
The strictly French-speaking we, temporarily put on hold by the rise of the independence movement which sought to build a Noah’s ark, suddenly came back in force, propelled by the bitterness and anger of defeat.
In the progressive ranks, we obviously wanted to erase this blunder on the part of a man, a great man, who had accustomed us to much else. “We had to show that we weren’t that,” as Gérard Bouchard explains in the film.
However, this “bad conscience”, to use the expression of Jacques Beauchemin, would have gone too far. But was there really a danger of forgetting who we were and where we came from?
A danger of self-effacement? Between two evils, that of identity withdrawal, which has returned to the charge since the failed referendum of 1995, and that of being too accommodating vis-à-vis cultural minorities, which is the most dangerous, in your opinion?
Which is more threatening for the future of Quebec?
The answers to these questions determine your “side” in the battle for the soul of Quebec.
The standoff that has raged since the evening of the last referendum between the old progressive ideals and the new conservative forces does indeed exist, despite the confusion that persists on this subject, cleverly maintained by the far-fetched notion that the Legault government is ” neither to the left nor to the right”, but in “straight line” with the Quiet Revolution.
The decisive moment in this battle took place from 2006 to 2007 during the crisis of reasonable accommodation.
The new identity movement was born at that time, first in the mouth of Mario Dumont, seeking to make political capital, and then, surprise, in the mouth of Pauline Marois, inspired by Jacques Beauchemin.
Choosing to polish the “we” at this precise moment, when tensions are at their maximum vis-à-vis religious minorities, not to mention the past charged with this term, choosing this word while believing that it can be used in a “inclusive” is, in my opinion, wishful thinking.
I know from having discussed it with many elected members of the PQ, that within the party we sincerely believed, by brandishing Quebec values, the values of “we”, we believed we were dealing a great blow for equality between men and women.
However, this toga effect has changed nothing in the situation of women, nothing in secularism either, while trampling on the pluralist values of the party and alienating young people, progressives and immigrants.
The adoption of a conservative nationalism within a party which had from the outset offered us something quite different has emptied it of its meaning, while allowing the rise of the CAQ which continues to feast on leftovers still hot from the PQ.
Can we really congratulate ourselves?