Journalists have noticed that for some time now, the leader of the Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, has preferred to speak of “popular consultation” rather than “referendum”.
“The history of the No camp, both in 1980 and in 1995, is to scare,” Mr. Plamondon explained at a press briefing this week. […] It’s really creating a general feeling of fear around something so simple and normal, namely consulting the population and asking them a simple question. »
A large number of Quebecers, those who lived through the referendum campaigns of 1980 and 1995, simply do not want to relive the trauma of those times. It has nothing to do with the supposed “fear campaigns” hatched by federalists. It’s simply that if, for some, these moments were exhilarating, for most of us, they were painful.
Younger people are undoubtedly skeptical when we tell them that families have been torn apart, that friendships have been broken by the discussions surrounding Yes and No. Yet it is true. I experienced it in my family, with friends, like thousands of Quebecers. For what ? Because these are extremely emotional debates. It’s about his country: the federalists do not want to lose theirs, the separatists want to win the one they dream of. Others are tortured by their ambivalence. Take the debates on Maple Spring or reasonable accommodations, and multiply that by a thousand.
Because the stakes are high and emotions are on edge, accusations and insults are raining down. Words often exceed thoughts. The wounds are deep. It takes years to treat them. In short, whether we call it a “referendum” or “popular consultation”, what Mr. Plamondon presents as “simple and normal” is in reality a very painful exercise for any society. Additionally, in 1980 and 1995, there was no social media, disinformation and artificial intelligence. In a future referendum campaign, this new situation would only accentuate the division.
On Wednesday, Mr. Plamondon insisted on the fact that he will not change his mind on holding a referendum in the first mandate of a possible PQ government: “There is no one in Quebec who doubts that a Parti Québécois government will ask a clear question about the future of Quebec in its mandate. » This constancy is perhaps admirable, but it is also misleading. History teaches us that, in the hope of reducing the fears of Quebecers in the face of the leap into the void that it is proposing, the Parti Québécois risks doing everything except asking a clear question, with all the risks that this entails of confusion, misunderstandings and conflicts in the event of a Yes victory.
For my part, I worry about the effect that the outbreak of new divisions among Quebecers would have. Our nation faces so many daunting challenges, from dysfunctional public services to an aging population, rising costs of living and housing shortages; It seems to me that we should focus on these concrete problems instead of wondering about the value of a dollar and a Quebec passport.
This is obviously not about opposing democracy. If a majority of Quebecers wish to have the opportunity to express their views once again on the political status of their nation, this will be the case. In a scenario where the question is as clear as Mr. Plamondon promises, the exercise will certainly be legitimate. However, the question is whether it is desirable.
We are two and a half years away from the next provincial election. A lot can happen between now and then. However, if the Parti Québécois’ popularity in the polls continues, the prospect of a third independence referendum will become increasingly clear on the horizon. What will be at stake, then, will not be the personality of this or that leader, but the future of Quebec. I am hopeful that the majority of Quebecers will prefer harmony and peace to division and bickering.