The sovereignty stalemate in Quebec politics

In chess, a stalemate occurs when one player is not in check, but is unable to move. That describes the present political situation in Quebec.

The level of dissatisfaction with the Couillard government is high — 59 per cent in the latest CROP poll for La Presse.

Among the French-speaking majority that decides elections in Quebec, the governing Liberals were third in popularity, with only 25 per cent of the “decided” vote.

Yet, thanks to the division of the other three-quarters of the francophone vote among three parties, combined with the 86-per-cent support for the Liberals among the non-francophone minorities, the Liberals were in first place overall.

This results in a polarization that is geographic as well as linguistic, since non-francophones are concentrated in metropolitan Montreal while the hinterland regions are almost exclusively francophone.

If this double polarization continues, eminent economist Pierre Fortin wrote recently, it’s a cause for concern, “especially if, in the future, the demographic weight of the non-francophone group increases,” due to immigration.

This could “jeopardize the social cohesion that is necessary to ensure our economic and social progress.”

Some indépendantistes, such as commentator Mathieu BockCôté, blame the non-francophones, for our “obstinate refusal to embrace the aspirations of the francophone majority.”

So not only is it our civic duty now to know who Martin Matte and Robert Charlebois are, sovereignists would also have us sacrifice our political interests to those of the majority — or at least that part of it that still supports secession.

At least one indépendantiste lays the blame with the sovereignty movement. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, currently running for the Parti Québécois leadership, said recently that the PQ’s biggest mistake was to “abandon” the minorities.

Fortin, the economist, doesn’t blame the non-francophones. He notes that the “massive” non-francophone support of the Quebec Liberal Party “didn’t begin yesterday. It is based on the QLP’s firm and stable support for Canadian federalism as it exists, and for the rights of the Englishlanguage culture and institutions in Quebec.”

It’s also rooted in the collective memory of the English-speaking community of the history of relations between itself and the separatist movement.

That relationship began, more than a half-century ago, with bombs placed in mailboxes in English-speaking neighbourhoods.

It continued through the trauma of two referendums on secession and the adoption in the 1970s of the anti-English Bill 101, the effects of which continue to be felt.

And only last Sunday, in a PQ leadership debate, Alexandre Cloutier pointed out that the only thing preventing the PQ from abolishing the right of anglophones to a trial in their language is the Canadian Constitution. Thanks for the warning.

So Jean-François Lisée’s new anglos-for-independence group (it was his idea) will probably find itself, analogically speaking, promoting St-Hubert to chickens.

The other new pro-sovereignty group formed recently probably won’t be any more successful.

Faut qu’on se parle (We Have to Talk) claims to be non-partisan, but its secessionist slip is showing.

One of the 10 questions it will

ask in public consultations is “Independence: how do we get ourselves moving again?” So right away, it’s excluded the majority of Quebecers, who don’t support sovereignty.

And one of its leaders, JeanMartin Aussant, is a former PQ member of the National Assembly and founder of the secessionist Option nationale party who recently re-joined the PQ.

“Despite its immense potential, Quebec has trouble moving ahead,” Aussant and his movement’s co-founders wrote, referring to the political stalemate.

But the cause of that stalemate is the independence movement. It still has enough support to remain a force in Quebec politics, but not enough to achieve its objective.

Lisée has acknowledged that in his PQ leadership campaign, promising to try to break the stalemate by taking secession off the table in the next general election.

For like the stalemated chess player, the sovereignty movement hasn’t been checkmated, but it can’t move, either.