With the resurgence of the debate about the political future of Quebec, we were treated to a series of very commented interventions from political actors past and present. It is interesting to note that these speeches were largely monopolized by members of the political and media class who had been marked by the constitutional crises of another century.
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
Indeed, this cohort of men (they are mostly men) marked by the failures of the post-Lévesque sovereignist project, but also of the post-Bourassa reforming federalist project, nurtures a defeatist reading of today’s political situation. Among these survivors of a dramatic period in our history, we detect a desire to turn the page on the battles of the past, which allows, I suppose, to wipe the slate clean at the dawn of the balance sheets.
For example, it is clear that former Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard is not calm about his political past. After all, he will have failed in his attempt to reform federalism with his friend Brian Mulroney, but also, and above all, to achieve independence after his retraining as leader of the Bloc and then of the Parti Québécois.
We feel bitterness and a certain frustration towards a Quebec that has not lived up to its expectations.
The current Prime Minister, François Legault, a former protege of Mr. Bouchard, has already been particularly impatient to get out of Canada. He then chose to create a political coalition that claimed to be neither separatist nor federalist — therefore in favor of the status quo — a far cry from his past ambitions. He arrived at autonomy through political pragmatism perhaps, but also, and above all, through a fatigue of defeat.
Bernard Drainville is the very last to have experienced this transformation, by also verbalizing a new desire to advance Quebec in a united Canada. The words used would not have sounded wrong in the mouths of reforming federalists 30 years ago. Once again, we are dealing here with a man who has come of age in the midst of Canadian constitutional tumults who, following an inability to imagine a new political future, now chooses a defensive nationalism.
What I call the losing side also includes a long list of former politicians from all partisan backgrounds who are now very active in the media. Faced with this roadblock, there are two projects that have the potential to ensure the emancipation of the Quebec political community. Because beyond the disagreements on the way that mark the public debate, it is this objective that counts.
The Canadian multiculturalist project has solid intellectual and institutional foundations, in addition to offering a clear response to the challenges of a society marked by diversity.
Enthusiastic acceptance and assumed integration into the Canadian project would, on the other hand, lead to the weakening of the Quebec national fact and potentially of the French fact in North America.
The independence project, meanwhile, has the potential to ensure complete political and cultural emancipation and a maturation of the Quebec national space. It would be the natural passage to adulthood of a political community that has always been under guardianship. However, separatism is an approach that requires political gestures of rupture with uncertain consequences.
It is inevitable that a Quebec national project cut off from its emancipatory ambitions will sink into an identity-based and defensive nationalism. This is what we are witnessing today. It turns out that this old recycled discourse, which is euphemistically called autonomism, has been put back on the agenda by a generation of federalists and separatists who have only known defeats. These once hopeful political figures are now resigned to enduring modernity rather than shaping it.
Fortunately, new generations of politicians less marked by the disappointments of another century are taking their place. We can hope that defensive nationalism and identity will eventually give way to real emancipatory political projects (Quebec or Canadian) capable of reversing the dangerous withdrawal into oneself that awaits us. The losing side will then have had its last battle.