| Some sovereignists, among them Jean-Roch Boivin, who advised René Lévesque and Lucien Bouchard, published in Le Devoir a manifesto for a realistic approach toward sovereignty. In this manifesto, they denounce the hardliners who would unilaterally declare independence after a referendum election. But what is more interesting is that they refute sovereignist arguments that rely on international law or natural law. Thus, they point out that for Québec, which is neither a colony nor oppressed, the right to self-determination recognized under international law is a right to internal autonomy within Canada, not a right to secession. They also point out that it is a fallacy to argue that if Québec is a nation, then it should normally be a sovereign state, because there are more cases in the world of nations cohabiting within a same state than of states made of a single nation. Yevgeny M. Primakov, former Russian Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, argued in A World Challenged that if the "one nation, one state" principle was systematically followed, there would soon be 2,500 countries on the face of the Earth.
Thus, using universally applicable arguments based on international or natural law means scaring off a lot of countries, who realize that if these arguments can be used to secede Québec from Canada, then their own regional minorities could use also them. This manifesto dodges this problem by arguing for secession strictly in terms of Canadian law, more precisely the Supreme Court's reference on secession. They believe sovereignists can meet the Court's requirement for a clear majority on a clear question in a referendum and exercise Québec's "constitutional right to secession". But here they cut corners. While the Supreme Court did say that such a referendum result would obligate the federal government and the other provinces to engage into negotiations with Québec, it never said that such negotiations would necessarily result in secession or that there is a right to secession. In fact it said that "[n]o negotiations could be effective if their ultimate outcome, secession, is cast as an absolute legal entitlement based upon an obligation to give effect to that act of secession in the Constitution" and added: While the negotiators would have to contemplate the possibility of secession, there would be no absolute legal entitlement to it and no assumption that an agreement reconciling all relevant rights and obligations would actually be reached. It is foreseeable that even negotiations carried out in conformity with the underlying constitutional principles could reach an impasse. We need not speculate here as to what would then transpire. Under the Constitution, secession requires that an amendment be negotiated. A refreshing element in the manifesto is the frank admission that sovereignism is "a project based on ethnicity, in the absence of which there would be no project." Thus, they declare that the main objective of this project is to create a country in which francophones are a majority. This is a more reality-based sovereignist argument than talking about an exclusively civic nationalism, which Stéphane Dion easily rebutted, or about the fiscal imbalance. In short, except for the correction described above, this manifesto is probably indeed the most realist thing that has come out of the sovereignist side in a long time. UPDATE 2006-05-12: Read also Michel C. Auger. | Quelques souverainistes, dont Jean-Roch Boivin, qui a conseillé René Lévesque et Lucien Bouchard, ont publié dans Le Devoir un manifeste pour une approche réaliste de la souveraineté. Dans ce manifeste, ils dénoncent les purs et durs qui veulent déclarer unilatéralement l'indépendance après une élection référendaire. Mais ce qui est plus intéressant est qu'ils réfutent les arguments souverainistes qui reposent sur le droit international ou le droit naturel. Ainsi, ils soulignent que pour le Québec, qui n'est ni une colonie ni opprimé, le droit à l'auto-détermination reconnu par le droit international est un droit à l'autonomie interne au sein du Canada, et non un droit à la sécession. Ils soulignent aussi que c'est un sophisme de plaider que si le Québec est une nation, alors il devrait normalement être un État souverain, car on trouve dans le monde plus de cas de nations cohabitant au sein d'un même État que d'États composé d'une seule nation. Evguéni Primakov, ex-ministre des Affaires étrangères et ex-Premier ministre de Russie, a affirmé dans Le monde après le 11 septembre et la guerre en Irak que si le principe "une nation, un État" était systématiquement suivi, il y aurait bientôt 2500 pays sur la face de la Terre.
Ainsi, d'utiliser des arguments universellement applicables basés sur le droit international ou naturel signifie faire peur à beaucoup de pays, qui réalisent que ces arguments peuvent être utilisés par un Québec faisant sécession du Canada, alors leurs propres minorités régionales pourraient aussi s'en servir. Ce manifeste évite ce problème en plaidant pour la sécession strictement selon le droit canadien, plus précisément selon le renvoi de la Cour suprême sur la sécession. Ils croient que les souverainistes peuvent remplir l'exigence de la Cour pour une majorité claire sur une question claire dans un référendum et exercer le "droit constitutionnel à la sécession" du Québec. Mais ils coupent ici les coins ronds. Bien que la Cour suprême ait dit qu'un tel résultat référendaire obligerait le gouvernement fédéral et les autres provinces à amorcer des négociations avec le Québec, elle n'a jamais dit que de telles négociations mèneraient nécessairement à la sécession ou qu'il y a un droit à la sécession. En fait, elle a dit qu'"[i]l n'y a pas de véritables négociations si le résultat recherché, la sécession, est conçu comme un droit absolu résultant d'une obligation constitutionnelle de lui donner effet" et elle a ajouté: Les négociateurs devraient envisager la possibilité d'une sécession, sans qu'il y ait toutefois de droit absolu à la sécession ni certitude qu'il sera réellement possible de parvenir à un accord conciliant tous les droits et toutes les obligations en jeu. Il est concevable que même des négociations menées en conformité avec les principes constitutionnels fondamentaux aboutissent à une impasse. Nous n'avons pas ici à faire des conjectures sur ce qui surviendrait alors. En vertu de la Constitution, la sécession exige la négociation d'une modification. Un élément rafraîchissant du manifeste est l'admission franche que le souverainisme est "un projet fondé sur l’ethnicité, sans laquelle il n’y aurait pas de projet." Ainsi, ils déclarent que l'objectif principal de ce projet est de créer un pays dans lequel les francophones sont une majorité. C'est un argument souverainiste plus ancré dans la réalité que de parler d'un nationalisme exclusivement civique, que Stéphane Dion a aisément réfuté, ou du déséquilibre fiscal. En bref, excepté pour la correction décrite ci-dessus, ce manifeste est probablement en effet la chose la plus réaliste qui soit sortie du camp souverainiste depuis longtemps. MISE À JOUR 2006-05-12: Lire aussi Michel C. Auger. |
Hi Polyscopique. I'm currently doing some research on Quebec and I'd like to ask you something. Are there significant policy differences between the ADQ and the Quebec Social Credit Party that indirectly brought down Joe Clark's government in 1979? Thank you.
Écrit par: Steve à mai 12, 2006 12:44 AMWell, since the Social Credit was a federal party and the ADQ is a provincial party and since decades separate these two parties, of course there are important policy differences. In particular, the Social Credit put much emphasis on social conservatism and on monetary/banking reform, while the ADQ does not. The ADQ emphasizes issues such as public debt repayment and population ageing, which were not really on the radar screen during the Social Credit's time.
Écrit par: Laurent à mai 13, 2006 09:28 PMThanks for the information Laurent (if that's your name, or if that's what you prefer to be called). I have 4 more questions before I stop bothering you (honestly, though, you don't have to answer them if you don't want to).
What do you think are the most significant policy similarities between the Social Credit and the ADQ?
The 2006 federal election saw the Conservatives polling ~10% higher than the ADQ's results in the last provincial election (IIRC), which implies that there are voters who voted Conservative but not ADQ. If such implications are true, what do you think these people's rationale might be?
Many studies went into investigating how the Conservative surprise in Quebec happened in 2006, and one such study quoted a woman who said Stephen Harper reminded her of Rene Levesque. How similar or different do you think Harper and Levesque are?
And, for that matter, how similar or different do you think Harper and Lucien Bouchard are?
Écrit par: Steve à mai 15, 2006 08:05 AMHi Steve,
Here are 4 quick answers to your 4 questions:
1) Their support for free enterprise, and particularly for small and midsize enterprises, as well as their preference for localism over centralized government.
2) These people are most probably provincial Liberal voters who used to vote for the federal Liberals. They must have been ultimately turned off by the federal Liberals' ethical scandals and seduced by Harper's proposal for an open federalism.
3) Policy-wise, their only real similarity is their will to clean up government and political mores. Otherwise, you're left with the fact that Lévesque was a left-leaning sovereignist and that Harper is a right-leaning federalist. Personality-wise, Lévesque 1976 and Harper 2006 are two leaders who say what they'll do and do what they said.
4) Personality-wise, they're quite different since Lucien Bouchard is a charismatic and emotional orator while Stephen Harper is cool and analytic. Policy-wise, Bouchard is centrist while Harper is center-right (you'll never hear Harper denounce "the cold wind from the Right" like Bouchard did in the 1998 elections). And, though it may be too soon to confirm it, they seem to both be willing to lead rather than follow public opinion on politically difficult issues (such as Bouchard's fight against the deficit).
Écrit par: Laurent à mai 16, 2006 11:17 PM"un projet fondé sur l’ethnicité"? Huuum. Et que se passera-t-il si les Quebecoises continuent a ne pas se reproduire, et que les "non-de-souche" deviennent majoritaires?
Les accusations d'apartheid ne tarderons pas. Tout comme pour Israel, un autre pays fonde sur l'ethnicite.
Écrit par: Manny à mai 24, 2006 09:27 PM