In many respects I have a great deal of sympathy for sovereigntists who have taken it on the chin and remained democrats throughout the painful referendum process, a thirty year ordeal that can only be described as devastating to those who passionately believe in creating an independent state.So close and yet so far.
There seems to be something inherently unfair about a winner take all process that perpetually leaves almost one-third to almost half the population out in the cold, politically speaking, on such an important issue.
It's not something we consider, those of us who are federalists and who have won both referendums and in almost all likelihood would win any referendum in the foreseeable future.
But sometimes winning is losing, especially when the victory resolves nothing. The NO victories of the last two referendums left Quebec in eternal limbo and where no full and final reckoning seems to be possible.
While sovereigntists accepted defeat graciously, they didn't accept giving up their dream or abandoning their efforts to militate for sovereignty and so we survive these referendums, committed federalists and committed sovereigntists, in a perpetual state of angst.
As an Anglo, you can well understand that I am not a sovereigntist, but I have no quarrel with those who want Quebec to secede from Canada, they are not Nazis, they are not xenophobes and they aren't all that hateful, believe me.
Not to say that there aren't idiots and extremists among them, as there is in our own community.
Most Canadians outside Quebec, as well many Anglos within, cannot truck sovereigntists on any level and take an aggressive and hostile attitude towards anyone who has the impertinence and the audacity to militate in favour of a new country.
But there is another reality which I have lived (and many of you) where federalists and sovereigntists live and work side by side, respecting each other's politics and sometimes, more often than you think, maintaining friendships across what one would think is an insurmountable political and philosophical divide.
Years ago I went on my first fishing trip, invited by a friend I had made while conducting business over the years, in the Lac-Saint-Jean region.
Jean-Pierre, is a couple years older than I, a calm, deeply spiritual gentleman who just happened to be a passionate sovereigntist.
On the trip we got around to talking politics where he explained that he didn't hate Canada or Anglophones, he just wanted his own country where he could enjoy a francophone Quebecois brand of culture without the imposition of anglophone politics, values and culture.
He used the analogy of a teen growing up and moving out of his parents' home, a case of personal growth, not a rejection of family.
I came to realize two things on that trip, the first, that I hated fishing and would never go again, and the second, that sovereigntist had a valid and legitimate dream, and although it is one that I didn't share, it was one that I could never again reject as illegitimate.
But for sovereigntists, holding onto this dream is no longer realistic, and Quebec independence is fading quickly from the realm of possibility.
Most watershed moments in history are hard to appreciate at the time.
Sometimes the impact of historical events can only be properly recognized at an indefinable point in the future, a time where we can look back and clearly see how an event marked or changed the course of history.
Such an event was the 1995 referendum which the sovereignty side lost by a whisker. The disappointed losers made brave declarations that the momentum towards sovereignty would be maintained, ultimately leading to victory, but looking back, it is clear that on the night of the referendum in 1995, the Quebec sovereignty movement had 'jumped the shark.'
Perhaps the diehards should consider what the ex-PQ Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard said about the issue of sovereignty in a newspaper interview that was quite revealing;
"Pauline Marois, needs to say no to the concept of a popular initiative referendum on sovereignty, because Quebecers do not want it. They are not there," said Bouchard.While aging sovereigntists rage on in the pages of vigile.net, demanding a referendum that they will no doubt lose, the more practicable nationalists seek to develop a de facto autonomous province that barely operates within the confines of the Canadian federation.
Especially because a third defeat would be inevitable.
Pay careful attention to what follows;
After the referendum defeat of 1995, Ottawa imposed the Clarity Act and Lucien Bouchard thought he could get Quebecers to repudiate the law by asking them to hold a referendum on the subject. Well, guess what! It turned out that Quebecers were not opposed to the Clarity Act!
"We would have lost the referendum, and it would have been in fact, a public endorsement of the Clarity Act!" said the the former Prime Minister, yesterday, still disappointed with this disarming observation.
Imagine a referendum today imposed by a minority of 'caribou!' A third defeat would have dramatic and lasting consequences. Better not even to think about ..." Link{Fr}
And so, for real sovereigntists and federalists, the status quo is not a solution, each remain unhappy with a province that is neither here nor there.
So perhaps it time for sovereigntists to consider the unthinkable, the partition of Quebec in a process somewhat like that which took apart Czechoslavakia, a process that concentrated on creating winners and not losers.
Before we do that, let us consider another aspect to the debate, that is the widening chasm to what Montreal is and always was, and what sovereigntist wish it to be.
The sovereigntist dream of an independent Quebec is based on the notion of a French-speaking country that has a homogeneous culture based on a narrowly defined set of ideals that are as foreign to Montreal as hijabs in Sept-Iles.
Montreal has always been a bilingual and ethnically diverse city, nothing has really changed, yet the sovereigntist fantasy remains that Montreal was once an all French city and can return to something it never was and therein lies the rub.
It is like a parent deciding that their child is not really gay and can be returned to the fold of heterosexuality through discipline, re-education, repression and brute force.
Good luck with that.
The sovereigntists should well consider letting go of Montreal. For them, it is a lost cause, not only does its soul swim in an opposite direction to what sovereigntists want Quebec to be, its voting bloc remains the last stumbling block holding back sovereigntists from achieving their goal.
Give up Montreal and sovereignty is a reality for the rest of Quebec, not in thirty years or 50 years or a hundred, but now.
A sovereignty referendum that included leaving Montreal out, allowing it to become a Canadian city-province would be approved by a majority of Quebecers because Anglos and ethnics would vote in favour of such an arrangement by a wide margin.
Sovereignty based on a such a wide consensus would likely be successful. This type of arrangement would also likely be very acceptable to Canada.
If such a friendly divorce could be adopted, a free trade agreement would likely work, where the free flow of people and goods and services between Canada (the province of Montreal) and the country of Quebec would be realistic.
For sovereigntists today, there is a real question to face and a realistic and honest assessment to be made.
With the prospects of achieving a winner-take-all referendum unlikely, is it better to wait for an eternity for a miracle or is it better to put some water in the wine and accept less now.
The reality is that Quebec can become a country within a year or two if separatists are willing to give up Montreal.
The question for them to consider is whether settling for three-quarters of a loaf is preferable to having none and is holding out for a miracle really in their best interest.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder