The mood in the progressive milieu here in Québec seems rather grim this morning. In Québec history we call the twenty-year period when anti-union, right-wing populist Duplessis ruled, the "Era of the Great Darkness," and many by email or on social media have spontaneously referred to the upcoming period in an analogous way. Many have adopted the "black square" in their email or on their social media sites as a sign of their anxiety.
People as diverse as Équiterre founder Laure Waridel, Lux editor Mark Fortier (the editor of the French edition of Jim Stanford's Economics for Everyone) and other progressives I know, are very nervous.
We expect major cuts in culture and a long and lasting change in the structure of federal fiscal policy, with further income depletion creating a permanent sense of fiscal crisis and a more generally policy of attrition of the federal state apparatus similar to Republican politics down south. Not to talk of international policy and environmental policy.
In the area of social policy many around me are also anxious, as the "tough on crime" policies aimed to please the neo-conservative base might be followed up by a "tough on women" socially conservative agenda.
We are glad the NDP surge worked in Québec, but very ambivalent. Many of the candidates are inexperienced, a few were merely "filling" the poster the time of the campaign and now will be sent of to Ottawa to represent Québec; others luckily are very experienced and articulate. More than half of the NDP caucus will be from Québec, and as a province we've put all our eggs in the progressive basket. This puts immense pressure on the NDP -- in the context of a majority Conservative government, they won't be able to deliver much in terms of "positive" results; this rhetoric will have to change as the NDP will have to develop a politics of resistance.
Furthermore, the structural links between the progressive community and the NDP in Québec are still shallow and weak; this will also have to change given the weight of Québec in the NDP caucus. If it doesn't, if the graft does not take, then we might see in the 2015 election an anti-NDP backlash in Québec.
Those of us that might want to see a silver lining in the dark clouds ahead and talk of a 2015 breakthrough for the NDP must consider the following points.
Advertising
1. Conservative support rose in terms of expressed votes everywhere in Canada except in Québec, not by much but enough to give him a majority. Vote splitting between the NDP and the Liberals is not the sole factor in the PCC victory; in Ontario the PCC garnered real support in specific communities, and vote splitting in the centre and left merely strengthened an already won majority.
2. Important forces will be unleashed by the PCC majority government to consolidate this hold on Canada, the alliance with Sun media will be strengthened and used in Québec against the NDP opposition, the CRTC will be reformed, and so will the federal research councils, Stats Can and other Canadian liberal institutions. The CBC will undoubtedly be radically downsized, public funding for parties also downsized, social and community groups will see their public funding cut further and become less visible, and all this will contribute to the development of a right wing and conservative culture in Canada...
3. If the NDP outside of Québec unites with the progressive elements in the Liberal party for the 2015 bid, this will further dilute the social democratic core of the party, further marginalize its socialist elements, and most importantly for progressive economists, reinforce the voice of mainstream economics in the party.
4. The NDP must find a way to consolidate its base in Québec; this will imply real decisions in constitutional matters if the party does not want to alienate its base in the ROC while building its base in Québec and translating the slogan of asymmetrical federalism into a viable vision for Québec and Canada.
Though we can't as progressives do much about points 1 and 2 , we can act on points 3 and 4, as some suggest we start working now. I agree but I think it important to recognize, after last night's euphoria, the real nature of our starting point.
This article was first posted on The Progressive Economics Forum.
Well said.
I think that we can do something about your point number two, despite what you say, if we keep reminding ourselves -- and especially make sure that Quebecers take note of this -- that in the ROC the anti-Harper vote was 52.2%. Of course, we wish that number was higher (in Quebec it was 84%) but really, if we had a better more democratic electoral system, that number would have been high enough to stop Harper even if no one in Quebec had voted.
If Quebecers retrench into a renewed sovereigntist movement, though, it will be harder to promote progressive politics in the rest of Canada. Harper will be able to push through his economic and social agenda while massively distracting us with patriotic propaganda and the ensuing back-and-forth recriminations.
I think it's necessary to grab the bull by the horns, and reopen discussions about the constitution before we are FORCED to do so in less positive circumstances. Quebecers are going to be questioning their desire to remain in a reactionary Canada anyway. The NDP needs to show that it's trying to do _something_ even in opposition, for Quebecers who gave the party their confidence. A constitutional discussion should include the very important issue of electoral reform. (Talking about electoral reform towards more proportional representation would necessarily open up the constitution anyways.) And talking about electoral reform helps to remind everyone in Canada -- as often as possible, one hopes -- that this Harper government only has the support of 39.7% of Canadians who voted.
If we put electoral reform at the front and centre, as a key component of constitutional reform, this also addresses your point number 3, as there's no need to create a new party that includes the Liberals. The Liberals might favour this, too, and with respect to this reform agenda we might be able to work together.
Again, I hope it can be emphasised as much as possible that even in the rest of Canada outside Quebec, Harper does not represent the values of the majority.
This can be a progressive project for national unity.
I see this federal Canadian 2011 election result as one that is highly positive for democratic co-operative socialism, world-wide.
Quebec's social and solidarity economies (les economies sociale et solidaire) are well-regarded (although little publicised - as compared, say to those in Mondragon, Emillia Romagna in northern Italy and the Argentinian worker co-ops).
The history of the NDP-NPD is that of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation - the CCF - and, as such, the forthcoming 2012 'UN Year of Co-operatives' could give a boost to the social(ist) co-op economies - both in Quebec and across Canada. Co-operators world-wide (in north America and beyond) will be anxious to know more of such economic and social democracy approaches in Quebec - for, both, wealth-creation and well-being creation.
As the early history of the Praire co-ops (and that of the Argentinian worker co-ops) demonstrate, public education and outreach by the co-op movement is essential for their establishment.
What, however is of at least equal, importance is the role of ongoing co-operative member education and community outreach. Case studies from Quebec of social and solidarity co-op efforts (both successes and frustrations) could form a key element in strengthening the NDP-NPD offering - over the next fives and beyond.
(Admitting that the following is strongly self-pubicity), I was asked by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (the CCPA) to write five articles on Co-operative Socialism - which they published in the CCPA Monitor in the winter 2009-2010 editions of their journal 'the CCPA Monitor'.
These have now been put together as a May 2010 CCPA Monitor 'Readings on Co-operative Socialism' Jason Moores at the CCPA can supply copies - jason--atpolicyalternatives--dot--ca
The articles can alos be found on-line in a larger bundle of writings in a PDF at the web-site of the Network Project (where the religious/spiritual aspect of wholosophy is also examined - I am, after all, a Quaker as well as a democratic co-operative socialist!).
I hope this helps! What profound, portentious times!
Woo-hoo!
Amidst the gloom, it's wonderful to read your articles and comments. I especially appreciate Eric recognizing the importance of harmonizing the NDP with the Québécois constituency, and Ian's point about re-opening the constitutional question.
The NDP MUST, without delay, deal with the problem of unilingual anglophone MPs, and those who are conspicuous by their absence. This is exactly the kind of insult that drives people away from the ROC and toward separatism, and it gets the NDP off on a bad foot.
We lost a very experienced, capable, intelligent MP to someone who, when I heard her speak, struck me as pleasant but ineffectual.
I've also have seen the signs that Québecers are pissed off, frustrated and ready for any excuse to talk away, particularly a video my sister-in-law sent to me that made the point quite forcefully. Taking off on Ian's point, if Layton could negotiate a constitutional solution that pleases everybody, that would make him the hero and Harper the zero.
be well
I have been sent a fine commentary '6,201 reasons . . .' - which I can share as a PDF - attachments aren't possible - it seems - here. So please ask
Great read. The reaction of Quebec to the NDP's efforts is something I will be watching closely.
iancosh said "that this Harper government only has the support of 39.7% of Canadians who voted."
I'm not sure what this proves one way or the other. The Liberals ruled for a long time with a Majority by only receiving around 40% of the popular vote each time...
Tigrlily, I'm glad you found my remarks useful. Did you see my reply to your remarks following this article?
http://rabble.ca/news/2011/05/quebec-be-thanked-propelling-ndp-forward
I agree with you, it would have been better, ideally, for the NDP to align with rather than contest the Bloc, but I explain why I think it was impossible.
maximus_C, I think the fact that Harper's majority is based on a 39.7% vote share is worth emphasising. And it should have been emphasised back when Chretien was winning his majorities. And when Mulroney won his, and when Trudeau... etc. So I see your point, but I don't want us to be prevented from changing the future just because we didn't do things in the past. I'm not a recent convert to electoral reform. I don't think that any political party or leader should ever be allowed to have the powers of majority government unless they actually do have, at the very least, a majority share of the votes. It's just absurd.
Imagine if Quebec had used a first-past-the-post riding-based election, instead of a referendum, to decide on separation in 1995. The Yes side would have won by a landslide and Quebec would now be a separate country, even though the Yes side got (barely) less than a majority share of the vote! Most Canadians including most Quebecers would not consider that a legitimate procedure to determine their collective future.
And yet, we allow other decisions about issues of vital importance -- health, the environment, foreign policy (including decisions to go to war) -- to be determined by governments that are usually controlled by single-party interests with less than a 50% mandate from the Canadian people. We are one of the only democracies in the developed world that thinks this is "democratic".
Cheers
iancosh, your reply makes more sense, I guess maybe it was just the tone of your first post regarding the %. I just find that a lot of posters on a lot of sites use this argument only when trying to argue the legitimacy of Harper's appointment and not other party leader's to the PMO.