Despite the hugs and displays of unity, a race within a political party always leaves scars.
The election of Émilise Lessard-Therrien to the position of female spokesperson for Québec solidaire was greeted with cries of joy at the Gatineau congress. After the great disappointment of the last election, we wanted to see it as a prelude to a “historic” breakthrough in the region.
We can draw another conclusion from his victory. Former National Option activists, who refused the merger with QS in 2017, now invite those who had accepted it to “converge towards a vehicle which is not afraid to make independence its priority”, this is i.e. towards the PQ.
In an open letter published on the digital platforms of Duty under the title “The end of the mirage”, they explain that they themselves turned their backs on the PQ in 2012, accusing it of having hidden the independence project in a closet, and they note that “history repeats itself at Québec solidaire “.
Since the merger, the former leader of Option nationale, Sol Zanetti, was elected and re-elected deputy for Jean-Lesage under the solidarity banner, but an agreement provided that ON would remain a distinct collective within QS and would play this game. title a leading role in promoting the independence project.
However, this collective, including Mr. Zanetti, had given its support to Ruba Ghazal in the race for the position of female spokesperson, precisely because of her “insistence” on independence during her campaign.
It is true that the member for Mercier was by far the one of the three candidates who seemed the most convinced when she spoke about it. Christine Labrie recognized that this was not her priority, while Émilise Lessard-Therrien mainly focused on rurality, to the point of evoking the “sovereignty of the regions”.
It is not new that the independence claims of QS have been contested. The collective’s open letter does not explicitly allude to the defeat of Mme Ghazal, but this could only reinforce his feeling that QS “puts this fundamental issue in the gutter of its list of priorities”, while “the Parti Québécois of PSPP will have succeeded, in a short time and with few means, to concretely advance the independence of Quebec.
It should also be noted that the current leader of the PQ projects a more reassuring image in the eyes of solidarity activists than his predecessor, Jean-François Lisée, who was literally demonized during the May 2017 congress in order to justify the rejection of any form of alliance with the PQ. On the basis of the criticisms leveled at it, whether it concerns language, immigration or secularism, we cannot say that the PQ has softened its positions.
It is true that the collective of ON alumni, which has around 800 members (out of a total of 20,000), can appear as “a small group in a party with a federalist majority”. The figures from the latest Léger poll are clear: 80% of the PQ would vote yes to a referendum on sovereignty, but only 35% of those in solidarity.
Perhaps they had misjudged the true nature of QS when they decided to merge. The question, however, is whether they would better serve the independence cause by migrating to the PQ or remaining in QS.
We must not have any illusions. A common aversion to the Legault government, even for different reasons, can encourage a certain complicity in the National Assembly, but we are still very far from a rapprochement.
After the tough struggle that pitted them against Montreal for years, QS’s new ambitions in the region could now be compromised by the return of the PQ.
The process of achieving sovereignty remains a major obstacle. In the eyes of the PQ, the constituent assembly project as presented in the QS program simply cannot lead to independence, if it does not directly aim to prevent it.
Necessity is the mother of invention, they say. A new political reality can also favor compromises unimaginable in other circumstances. Recent polls suggest the possibility of the election of a PQ minority government, which would be incapable of holding a referendum without the support of another party.
Unless the bad conscience of former sovereignists elected under the colors of the CAQ pushes them to defect, discussions on “convergence” which were brutally interrupted in 2017 should be urgently reactivated.
It goes without saying that such a scenario would provoke heated discussions within QS, where some would not fail to multiply their objections. If the sovereignists who are still campaigning there go to the PQ, who will be responsible for responding to them?