PLSC 445B -- Québec Class Notes

[kevyn]

PLSC 445B -- Québec Politics
Class Notes -- 5-May-2008



=== CURRENT EVENTS IN QUÉBEC ===

Is the FLQ back? (Probably not)
Last week, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's grave site at Saint-Rémi was defaced with FLQ graffiti, as was a nearby Royal Canadian Legion outpost. Both were probably done by the same person(s). Ironically, the perpetrators did not spell everything in proper French, leading many to call the unknown vandals "imbeciles," and speculating that they were probably young pranksters.

A lion was captured in Maniwaki, QC last week. (Seriously!) It was a pet that had escaped. Police captured the lion, and it's now in a zoo.

=================================
QUÉBEC INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT
Is Separatism Dying?
Is a New Referendum Coming?


How can the emergence, growth spurts, and declines of the Québec independence movement be explained?

According to Maurice Pinard (2002), there have been 4 distinct phases of the independence movement, since it emerged in 1960:

Phase 1. Emergence, and relatively slow growth, 1960-1980 referendum
Phase 2. Rapid Decrease, 1980-1987
Phase 3. Spectacular Growth, 1988-1990
Phase 4. Slow Decrease, 1991-1995 referendum

- Have we entered a new phase since the 1995 referendum?
- If so, how can we describe that phase?
- Is Québec separatism dying?
- If so, what factors can explain this?


VARIANTS OF THE QUÉBEC INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

1. Separation or Independence
2. Sovereignty
3. Sovereignty-Association (S-A)


1. Support for Separation/Independence

1st phase -- 1962:  8% for / 1980: 24% for
2nd phase -- 1981: 23% for / 1985: 15% for
3rd pahse -- 1988: 28% for / 1990: 46% for
4th phase -- 1991: 44% for / 1995: 35% for

2. Support for Sovereignty
- 1988: The word "sovereignty" is adopted by the PQ to refer to the independence option.
-- The word comes from René Lévesque's "sovereignty-association" option.
-- But the word was still referring to the separation of Québec (just like the words "independence" and "secession")

==Words Matter==
- Levels of support, and levels of opposition started to differ according to the terms used by pollsters.
- Use of the terms "separation" and "independence" did not make a difference in the levels of support/opposition.
- But the word "sovereignty" did increase support. There was stronger support for "sovereignty" than for "independence" or "separation."

==Problems with these words==
- There is a great deal of confusion about what these words mean.
- Many think "sovereignty" means maintaining political ties with Canada, or even remaining in Canada.

3. Support for Sovereignty-Association ("S-A")

- In April 1995, polls showed that a referendum couldn't be won on the term "sovereignty" alone, so the PQ
started to use the terms "Sovereignty-Association" and "Sovereignty-Partnership" in the campaign rhetoric.

- Support for "S-A" has always been higher than for "separation," "independence," or "sovereignty."

- The notion of what "S-A" actually means is very confused, so support for "S-A" varies greatly from poll to poll.

- Voters in favour of "S-A" are cautious.
-- Many are in favour of such an option, but he proportion who would vote in favour of "S-A" if not certain about the "association" part stands at only 31%, and 59% would vote against it.

==Factors Explaining the emergence of the Québec Independence Movement in the 1960s, and during the first growth phase==

1. Motivational Forces
2. Ethnic Segmentation
3. Ethnic Identities, Loyalties, and Nationalism
4. Other beliefs
5. Human & Material Resources
6. Dynamic Aspects and Trigger Effects


1. MOTIVATIONAL FORCES
- In order to be motivated to participate in the independence movement, a person must be moved by 3 factors:

A. Internal motives pushing a person to act.
-- Examples: Deprivations, grievances, threats, aspirations, moral obligations.
-- In the Québec case, class, economic status and power grievances were all involved, as were perceived cultural threats to francophone identity.

B. Positive External Incentives
-- Acknowledgment that there are potential rewards "out there" prompting action.
-- In Québec's case, the idea that the movement could "remove cultural threats"

C. Belief in Success
-- The person acting must believe that the independence movement can actually succeed.
-- In Québec's case, the spectacular success of the early PQ elections, and the leadership of René Lévesque made people believe.


2. Ethnic Segmentation
-- The Québécois had developed a rich and well-defined civil society of their own separate from the Canadian identity, and most importantly, had entrenched institutions and associations.
-- Canadian Federalism had allowed for the segmented Québécois ethnicity.

3. Ethnic Identities, Loyalties, and Nationalism
-- The emergence and development of strong ethnic identities and loyalties, and especially a well-developed nationalist identity, were necessary. An Ethnic Segmentation can exist without nationalist aspirations.

==The Importance of Ethnic Leaders==

-- Effective leaders & intellectuals are those who favour the emergence of nationalist ideologies and mobilize individuals.

-- Some important leaders during the emergent phase:
--- Pierre Bourgault, leader of the RIN, one of the precursors of the PQ
--- René Lévesque, leader of the PQ
--- Pierre Vallières, author of "Nègres blancs d'Amérique" ("White Niggers of America") and FLQ intellectual.

-- Leaders can intensify sentiments and make use of them for political goals.
--- An interesting debate: Do leaders follow the people the represent, or do the people follow the leaders?


4. Other Beliefs
- The apparition of the new social and new left movements of the 1960s and 1970s (women's movement, ecology movement, student movements, etc.) also favoured the emergence of the emergence of the Québec Independence Movement.
-- These movements appeared because the period were unusually rapid and long-lasting because of the sustained economic growth of the period.
-- This allowed people to gradually shift their preoccupations from materialistic to post-materialistic ones (ie., food, shelter, etc. were taken care of).

5. Human and Material Resources
- Large amounts of material and human resources were available for ethnic mobilization.
-- In the case of Québec, the size of the ethnic group involved could generate a very high degree of mobilization.
--- This wasn't the case of other ethnic movements in the world, such as the Sami people of northern Europe (formerly known as "Lapps").
-- During the Quiet Revolution, there were a high number of young intellectuals available to join the movement.

6. Dynamic Aspects: Some Triggering Effects
-- These aspects intensify the 5 more static/constant factors described above.
-- According to Pinard, the most important dynamic factors in Québec during this period were:
--- The major value changes occuring during the Quiet Revlution
--- The growth of the Québec State during the Quiet Revolution


=========================
== The 1995 Referendum ==
=========================

- What were the factors behind this improved showing of sovereignists compared with the 1980 referendum -- an increase of 9 points or better?

- What were the other factors that allowed the federalists to be victorious again?

1. Factors favouring the sovereignists

A. The Bouchard Effect
- Attributable to the popularity of Lucien Bouchard the leader of the Bloc Québécois in Ottawa
-- On October 7, 1995, Québec Premiere Jacques Parizeau named Bouchard as the chief negotiator between Québec and Canada for the planned partnership, should "YES" be victorious.
-- Bouchard becomes the de facto leader of the "YES" forces.
-- Bouchard is talented, charismatic, and excellent speaker, and has far more popular appeal than Parizeau.
-- Some argue now that Bouchard wasn't really that important, but this is likely only because he wasn't successful.

B. Political Opportunities
- The political context favours the "Yes" side.
-- Repeated failures on the "NO" side to renew federalism (Meech Lake Accord, Charlottetown Accord)
-- The PQ strategy of talking "S-A" instead of "S" only is popular.
-- The BQ and PQ are more popular than the federalist parties during this period.

C. Socio-Political factors
- Strong ethnic grievances
- A larger proportion of the aggrieved are mobilized in 1995 than in 1980
- A larger proportion in 1995 than 1980 believe that independence will not be economically costly.
- A larger proportion in 1995 than 1980 support "YES" as a strategic move, as a way to induce federalists to renegotiate some form of renewed federalism.

D. Generational Effects
- In 1980, support for "YES" was mainly a youth phenomenon.
- Not the case in 1995. The young are still strongly pro-"YES," but all age groups up to mid-50s are pro-"YES" as well.

-- So... these youths who favoured independence in 1980 still did in 1995, as older voters.
-- Only older voters who entered the electorate before the emergence of the Québec Independence Movement remain strongly apposed.

2. Factors that contributed to the (slim) "NO" Majority

A. Identities & Loyalties
- In Québec, even if there is strong attachment to the province & Québécois institutions, there often still remains a strong attachment to Canada.
-- In 1995:
--- About 60% of Québécois express a profound attachment to Canada.
--- About 80% expressed being proud of being both Quebecers and Canadians at the same time.

B. Sociodemographic Dimensions
- Anglophones and Allophones are almost unanimous in "NO" vote.
- Women were traditionally more supportive of "NO."
- Higher education (even among the young) meant one was less likely to be a "YES" supporter.


================================
== What does the future hold? ==
================================

There are 7 assertions that are now generally accepted in Québec:

#1. There has been a decline in support of sovereignty since 1995.
#2. Support for sovereignty is dropping in Montréal.
#3. A lower proportion of women than men support "YES."
#4. The "Bouchard Effect" was minimal during the 1995 referendum campaign.
#5. The "NO" victory in 1995 was due to moneyed interests, and the ethnic vote.
#6. Support for "NO" was almost unanimous among non-francophones.
#7. Quebecers have ambivalent feelings about sovereignty and federalism.

According to Gagné and Langlois, the facts don't support these assertions.

== NOW ==

- An April 30, 2008, CROP poll shows weak support for Québec Independence.
-- Only 36% of respondents would vote for separation today.

Comments

[detailbear.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's coming, but I didn't see anything about the ROC* response to the 1995 referendum. There were two opposing POV's from out here.

1. That massive rally of bused-in non-Quebeckers asking that they vote 'no'. There are mixed feelings on whether that had much effect on the vote.

2. The non-acceptance of S-A by the ROC: the 'association' part of S-A requires that Canada accept the terms proposed by Quebec. There was a strong message from many outside of the Province that they would not be accepted. Maintaining financial, business and monetary systems was strongly rejected by some ("If they want out, then they can print their own money. Banks will have to decide if they will be Canadian or Quebecois. Forget being listed on the TSE (TSX, now).")

The St. Lawrence Seaway would not be allowed to remain in Quebec, along with the road-rail corridor connecting Ontario to New Brunswick. (Think Berlin corridor.) The Cree of Northern Quebec wanted to remain in Canada. Reminders that those territories in Northern Quebec were only "assigned" to Quebec, not actually part of the province (although that is not true). Quebecois soldiers would not be allowed to stay in the Canadian Armed forces. It was thought by some of us out here that this would affect point 1C.

For the non-Canadians following the story:

*ROC = Rest of Canada, a term coined by the Quebec separatists to describe Canada outside of Quebec.

[kevynjacobs.livejournal.com]

> Maybe it's coming, but I didn't see anything about the ROC* response to the 1995 referendum.

Indeed. I do not know if we'll be covering them or not, but I will bring this question up in Thursday's class.

It is important to remember, this is a Québec politics and history class, taught from a Québécois POV, and partially funded by the Québec government... though I haven't detected any particular anti-Canadian bias (for instance, the instructor says he is proud of both his Québécois AND Canadian identities).

> 1. That massive rally of bused-in non-Quebeckers asking that they vote 'no'. There are mixed feelings on whether that had much effect on the vote.

I'll definitely bring that up.

> The non-acceptance of S-A by the ROC

Yes, an important point. S-A was a frightfully confused notion, and even the voters in Québec weren't fully able to define it. It is understandable that the ROC wasn't accepting of the idea. But the ROC wasn't voting in the 1995 referendum, and this lecture had a focus on Québec during that period. Again, I will bring up the point on Thursday.

About your comments on point 1C, that all of the potential negative economic effects you list if the "YES" side won, it all may very well be true.

But the point was, the voters didn't "believe" that the "YES" vote wouldn't be economically costly. Whether or not this was true, and whether the ROC believed it, is another story.

Of all of the points you list, only one was actually mentioned in class -- the threat of First Nations' refusal to separate from Canada in the event of a "YES" victory -- and it was brought up by me.

I'll bring up the rest of the negative economic effects from the ROC's POV in Thursday's class.

[detailbear.livejournal.com]

I had forgotten about the funding part. With that particular focus, it may make most of my points irrelevant to the course. Hopefully your instructor does a review/question time at the beginning of the class where you can bring it up without it disrupting the flow.

[kevynjacobs.livejournal.com]

I mentioned your comments at the beginning of class today, and he laughed and jokingly suggested that you needed to come to WWU and teach an ONTARIO politics and culture class.

Think you could get the McGuinty government to fund such an endeavour? ;-)

[detailbear.livejournal.com]

Unlikely ;-)