Parti québécois: vive la dépendance?

It seems the PQ is still alive and well, despite the fact that their raison d'être as such is no longer one of their goal. So my question is: should they still be a party if they've lost their raison d'être?

Their position on the political spectrum has also shifted a lot during the years, from left to centre, back to the left back to the center with short incursions to the right. Today the PQ can no longer be considered as a leftist party and since a future referendum is no longer present in their program, it can no longer be considered a separatist party. Then what is today’s PQ? Sure, it has some elements of its separatist past and it sure is more left than ADQ and sometimes (and sometimes not) more left than the PLQ but apart from that, is there any significant difference that sets it apart from the rest? Apparently no! And this is why we should ask ourselves about the future of this party.

There are four avenues that it can choose from:

1. Stay the course and pretend to be fundamentally different from the other two main provincial parties while still not advocating separation nor a real left alternative.
   
2. Dissolve and reassign its members between the old nemesis (PLQ) for the soft separatists and the rightists and between the new left of Québec Solidaire (QS) for the hardcore separatists and the leftists
   
3. Form a coalition of the forces of the left, just as QS is doing with the annexation of many leftist groups (the latest of which is le Parti Communiste du Québec) by annexing the annexationist (annexing QS to the PQ)
   
4. Reintegrate the old ideals of the glorious party it used to be.
   

Until one of these ideas will be put in place, the Liberals will win elections, Québec Solidaire will steal more and more separatist and leftist votes that traditionally went to the PQ and the latter will continue to sit in the opposition, dreaming of the day when it still was a party with a reason to exist. Perhaps dismissing the party as such is not such a bad idea, perhaps this would kill the separatist movement, perhaps it is time for new leftist blood, perhaps Québec Solidaire is that new left, perhaps it is that new voice of separatism...or maybe not, who knows?

Canada and Obama, BFFs. Why is that?

I know you're probably too busy right now to read this blog, but anyhow, congratulations mister president, you are truly an inspiration to us all. Of course I'm talking of president-elect Barack Obama, certainly not of George W. Bush! Why is that, though? Why is it that for Canadians, Obama has been such a great source of enthusiasm even during the federal election's campaign? Why is it that had Canadians had the choice in the last election, they probably all would have chosen Obama instantly over Harper, Dion, Layton, May and Duceppe (except some rednecks maybe). Because he has CHARISMA! It's as simple as that!

Well not really...actually it's probably because he has many qualities which lead to his charismatic personality that more than half of the American population voted for him and all of the Canadian population watched and cheered for him from the bench. It's actually one of the first subjects since confederation (and even before) on which English Canadians and Québécois agree on (some of the few others are Beer and Hockey as the best things ever): Obama would make a great prime minister of Canada. Mr. Barack Obama has all the qualities we have rarely seen in modern political figures here: Intelligence, Being a visible minority, Progressive thinking, Belief and trust in the capacity of his own people, Refusal to give up, Eloquence, Handsomeness and the list goes on and on.

Had Obama been Canadian however, he would probably not have made it to being prime minister, not because of his colour or of his name but because of his ideas. We like to see ourselves as progressive, and yet, Obama proposes ideas that only one of the big parties is leftist enough and daring enough to propose and that is the NDP (I'm not being pro-NDP here; I'm just explaining a phenomenon from my own perspective...which is not NDP if you must know). Usually the Liberals are the ones who are closest to the Democrats in ideology and in actions, but not this time around. The new president of the United States ran on social-democratic ideas and ideals and won in the one of the most (is not the most) conservative state of the Western world.

That's why Canadians love him, because we wish we could be as progressive, but also and mostly because we wish we could still have those Pierre Elliot Trudeau and René Lévesque, those Jean Lesage and Lester B. Pearson to love and to hate with all our guts, to rant about and to dream about every day. I dare anyone to find me a politician with as much charisma as Pierre E. Trudeau, René Lévesque or Barack Obama in today's Canadian political scene. If you can't, then become one and save us from boring to death please, I beg you!

Canada: a country for minorities

Everyone who knows Canada knows its love for immigrants and its obsession with minorities. But when this passion becomes political, there's something fishy going on. The last federal election gave us our third minority government (correct me if I'm wrong) in as many elections. With a minority government as well at the provincial level in Québec, a tendency seems to be appearing on the Canadian political scene: the demand for political structures change. Because the last election was not unworthy of our time, quite the opposite, it sent a clear message to every party: Conservatives, you're good but not good enough (in Québec and Maritimes: you're not good enough). Liberals, we still like you (despite your backstabbing us...), but not Stéphane, better luck next time. NDP, we like you but...Greens, it feels good to describe ourselves as ecologists but there's a huge difference between what we want others to think of us and what we truly are. Bloc, keep up the good work, but please try to understand what's going on in Québec and in Beauce for God's sake! Another interpretation could simply have been that Canadians like Harper but are afraid of his conservatives minions and so refuse to let him have a majority. Then how can you explain that in this Québec election also, although people are not afraid of Charest, few people want a majority government? If we put aside the incredible importance the media have had on this phenomenon, we can simply understand this visceral desire for minority governments as a desire for more accountable governments, desire that came out of the distrust of government, distrust that came out of the sponsorship scandal on the federal level and out of the Gaspesia flop on a smaller scale on the provincial level. Another explanation is perhaps the lack of unity under a true eloquent born leader. The Canada loves Obama phenomenon will be the subject of my next blog, in relation to the phenomenon of minority governments.

Weird Destination Pour Un Bleu & My Perfect Scenario

Duceppe is off to Toronto to speak to the Economic Club of Toronto this coming Friday...wait did I hear right? Is he going to present a candidate or what? Has Duceppe become totally nuts? Apparently not, since he delivered a speech north of Montreal in which he explained the content of his upcoming Toronto speech. He will not betray his separatist intentions. He will explain the similarities that link Ontario and Québec and how much these two latter provinces are diametrically opposed to the western provinces. He is going to explain to the Toronto Economic Club that the biggest threat to Canada right now is not separatism but the Conservatives. Basing himself on the refusal of the Liberal government (led by Jean Chrétien at the time) to participate in the Iraq war, he asserts the usefulness of the Bloc to Québec citizens as well as to Canadians (wait did I hear right) all over the country. However, when one listens to Duceppe's speeches, one can understand why he says so. After all, if the Conservatives had had a minority government at the time of the decision for the Iraq war, they would have asked for support, and would not have found it with the Bloc (since they voted against it in the first place).

In a totally unrelated topic, I would like to congratulate Canada and Québec for finally according a fighting chance to the NDP (The polls show a thinning margin between Liberals and the former). I personally think the perfect realist result for any Québec resident in this election would consist of a minority Conservative government (because the reality of a NDP governed Canada is not for today nor for the immediate future...sadly) with the official opposition formed by the NDP (a right-wing party in a limited power making compromises with a left-wing party in strong position) and, as to not forget our interests, a big majority in Québec of Bloc wins. That result would force the Liberals to throw Dion out and find a true leader. While waiting for the centrist party to rebuild itself and to gain back the public's trust, I think a balance between a right and a left party in the chamber with a voice for Québec would definitely be the best outcome for Québec residents. Come to think of it, it would also be the best outcome for Canada because as long as this situation would prevail, Québécois would be comfortable in this system and separatism could sleep for a little while longer...but do what you will on October 14th, just remember that Québec separatism movement feeds on discontent and lack of appropriate representation in the federal system.

Naïve

This post is all about Québec's separatist movement.

If you think this issue isn't going to make the news these days because of the approaching federal election and the American election occupying the front stage of politics, you’re naïve. If you think the separatist issue is dormant and won't be awaken if we're careful enough, you're way too naïve for politics.

The Québec media have at multiple occasions in the last few years prophesised about its death and yet with every federal or provincial election, the subject of a third referendum is brought back to public attention in the form of a scarecrow, as an empty threat by FEDERALIST leaders. I personally find it quite hilarious to see aspiring prime ministers of Canada fight to determine who amongst them would be best at fighting the threat of such a referendum. That’s despite the fact that such a referendum would be voted inside one province, not ten. Of course, one could say that the most talented public speaker would be the best in such a battle of arguments against secession. However, in the end isn't it only Québec residents that would vote in the event of a referendum? Last time I checked, only two candidates from the five main parties (I consider the Greens and the Bloc as main parties) were Québec residents (Dion and Duceppe), and one of those two is an alleged separatist.

My conclusion is as follows, why bother attacking your opponent on a subject on which neither you nor your opponent have a strong control upon? You'll probably notice that some important subjects (such as AFGHANISTAN) will be left out of the debate to the expense of the fight about who's the best protector of Canada's territorial integrity. Why, you ask me, won't the candidates talk about Afghanistan? Well it’s simply because the Liberals and the Conservatives agree on that issue. But then again, don't they also agree on Québec's secession proposal?

Simon Kemp-Parazelli

P.S. I realize the irony of writing about separatism to underline the futility of talking about the subject. However, if you read carefully enough, you'll realise I think it is a waste of time to talk about an issue if the person talking about it does not dispose of the means to affect it, not the other way around.