Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Sovereignty project has had reverse effect

As we mark the one-year anniversary of Stephen Harper’s majority win, it is appropriate to reflect on the state of Canada’s national unity, particularly in light of the comments made recently by Michael Ignatieff that essentially characterized Quebec’s separation from Canada as being inevitable if devolution of power and attempts at accommodation continue.

The reality is that while Canada’s unity is challenged, it is not jeopardized.

Technically speaking, national unity has never been in better shape. The Clarity Act has proven to be a phenomenal obstacle for separatists to circumvent. In the 1995 referendum, following what many Quebeckers viewed as the rejection of Quebec by Canada as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, the “Yes” side failed to obtain even a majority of votes on an unclear question. With no trigger resembling the failure of Meech on the national scene at the present time, it would be difficult to imagine Quebec separatists causing enough fury in the province for them to obtain a clear majority on a clear question.

On a more profound level, however, it is worth noting that Quebec separatists have failed in their most basic of goals: to convince Quebeckers that independence for Quebec can only be achieved through sovereignty. The sovereignty project has actually had the reverse effect of its intended goal for Quebec — it has created a situation in which Quebec is dependent on Canada simply to keep its economy afloat.

National projects tend to be collectivist in nature. Decades of high spending have led to Quebec having the largest debt-to-GDP ratio of any Canadian province. Even some sovereigntists eventually realized the problem at hand and coalesced into the lucides faction, although they were eventually defeated by the solidaires, who favoured big government.

Today, Quebec receives by far greater equalization payments in absolute figures than any other province. It is inconceivable that Quebec would be able to finance its $7-a-day daycare and afford its lowest-in-the-country post-secondary tuition rates if not for the high taxes it has imposed on its citizenry and the cash it receives from Ottawa. Quebeckers have now overwhelmingly made it clear that they are not prepared to undergo another tax hike in order to massively subsidize education and other programs.

Ignatieff’s argument that provincial jurisdiction over natural resources represents a liability rather than an asset when it comes to national unity has proven historically to be false. In Quebec, it has been Liberal (federalist) governments that have exploited natural resources: Adélard Godbout founded Hydro Québec, Jean Lesage nationalized electricity, Robert Bourassa advanced the James Bay hydroelectric project, and Jean Charest is pushing Le Plan Nord forward. The message put forward by these premiers was and is clear: Quebec can achieve prosperity within Canada.

Federalist premiers have also been important contributors to Quebec nationalism: Adélard Godbout created the slogan “Je me souviens”, Jean Lesage’s government adopted the lis blanc as Quebec’s official flower, and Robert Bourassa’s Liberals put forward Bill 22 — a precursor to Bill 101. The message, again, is clear: Quebec can protect its heritage, culture and language within Canada.

The path toward Quebeckers winning the freedom to achieve their greatest potential runs through integration with the rest of Canada. It is inconceivable that a left-wing Parti Québécois government would enact the necessary economic reforms to earn Quebec long-term stability, nor would it be able to increase inter-provincial cooperation and trade to ensure that Quebec’s fiscal footing arrives on solid ground. Indeed, the very aim of separatists is to demonstrate that federalism doesn’t work, so as to provide a rationale for separation.

Yet while support for sovereignty is not on the rise, support for the Parti Québécois has been in recent months. This has been the case because Pauline Marois has emerged on the provincial scene as the greatest opponent to Stephen Harper. Harper’s first year has seen numerous offenses toward Quebec, likely because he feels he can win a majority without it — dismantling the long gun registry and attempting to destroy its records, implementing tough on crime measures unpopular in the province, and overly celebrating the British monarchy, among other things.

National unity is not merely ensuring that Canada remain a single country. It is also creating the conditions that allow for the different regions of the country to work in concert, something that is difficult to achieve with a separatist premier on the national scene. Only if every region is on board will Canada be able to address the fundamental challenges of the future.

One year into his majority mandate, we can conclusively say that Harper’s alienation of Quebec combined with his “watertight compartments” view of federalism — particularly on the health care file — have made it harder for us as a country to address those very challenges.

Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Zach Paikin

No comments:

Post a Comment