30 years ago, I participated in the founding of Action Démocratique du Québec. The anniversary coincides with the release of a historical and political book which relates the emergence of a third way following the failure of Meech.
One of the authors has been a comrade in arms since we met (we were 17) among the young liberals. The political scientist Éric Montigny was therefore a privileged witness to the events.
If I look back at the time, the expression “third way” naturally emerged from all observers when imagining the creation of a new political party. The expression no longer has any meaning today when we have five parties in Quebec and as many in Ottawa.
But in 1994, Quebec politics was in binary mode, the system based on two players. PQ versus liberals. Sovereignists versus federalists. Yes versus no. The blues against the reds. The idea of the third way consisted of getting out of this polarization which was becoming sterile.
- Listen to Mario Dumont’s LCN segment via QUB :
The political system was becoming lazy. The beautiful alternation pleased everyone. Two terms in power, two terms in opposition. In opposition, there is no point in developing a political program that is too innovative. After two mandates, the people will be tired of the government, the power will return to us.
They had even transformed the Electoral law and the regulations of the National Assembly to serve a duopoly. Money and privileges distributed between two parties. The ADQ had to break the Electoral law by the courts to restore fairness.
Autonomist policy
Third or not, from the point of view of Quebec’s national affirmation, the autonomist path changed the situation.
The Liberal Party had flattened itself by abandoning its nationalist positions. His demands would now be minimal.
Archive photo, REUTERS / Mathieu Belanger (CANADA)
The PQ was fairly locked into its idea of holding repeated referendums and even more locked into its union-state model that was more ruinous than effective. The PQ would always say that any autonomist policy was doomed to failure.
However, after two lost referendums, the message from Quebecers seemed clear to me: they wanted more autonomy for Quebec, but within Canada. Difficult? Certainly. But necessary.
The duty of a nationalist at that time was to devote his energies to advancing our powers, our language and our culture with all the tools at our disposal. By freely voting no to sovereignty, Quebecers were not giving up their aspirations or their pride. Above all, they did not give up the sustainability of their identity.
Never in power
The ADQ won battles and seats, but never achieved power. After the voters showed me the door in 2008, the remaining deputies joined François Legault’s movement, which had the wind in its sails.
I remain convinced that the advent of the ADQ has transformed the political scene over fifteen years.
Convinced that the ADQ has changed our collective consciousness about state finances, about equity between generations and about our identity.
And above all convinced that… thirty years goes by quickly!