Sovereignty isn’t what it used to be: It would bring less power, not more
In 1995, just before the Quebec referendum, I co-authored a book with Angeline Fournier called The Delusion of Sovereignty: Will Independence Weaken Quebec? Now, 20 years later, with a possible referendum ahead if the Parti Québécois wins Monday’s election, what can be said about that option?
I can only say that the main arguments against independence have, if anything, been reinforced with the passage of time.
The opponents of independence have rightly warned of a probable economic decline for Quebec immediately after independence. But what is much more persuasive is to argue that Quebec sovereignty, in today’s world, would end up weakening rather than strengthening Quebec’s control over its own affairs. How can this be so? First, the concept of sovereignty itself is overblown. Born of the European Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it is supposed to be the highest power on Earth, one that cannot be trumped by anything else. While this might have been true in Louis XIV’s time, when he exclaimed L’Etat c’est moi, it is certainly not true today.
As the sociologist Daniel Bell once noted, sovereign governments of nation states have become too big for small problems and too small for big ones. The rise of non-state actors — such as multinational companies, and highly influential global special-interest groups — have greatly diminished the power of governments. These groups include fi- nancial institutions, religious sects, organized crime, terrorists, etc.
In addition, the international mobility of capital allows footloose corporations to pit one jurisdiction against the next — because they can threaten to leave a given country if displeased.
The smaller individual countries must then bend over backward in a lose-lose spiral to attract and keep them, all at taxpayers’ expense.
Now, factor in climate change, pollution, epidemics and other natural phenomena that are totally unimpressed by political borders and sovereignty reveals itself to be a cruel delusion in an interdependent world.
The second line of argument against Quebec separation is that Confederation has allowed the province to exert an influence on Canadian affairs well beyond its economic and demographic weight.
For years, “French power” in Ottawa has been a key factor in Canadian politics, with all the Canadian prime ministers coming from Quebec except for Stephen Harper and short tenures by Joe Clark and Kim Campbell. Quebec representation in the House of Commons and the Senate was and is strong.
The province has, by law, an important influence on immigration policy. It receives equalization payments from richer provinces and, as part of Canada, it is part of the G8 (now G7) group of nations wielding meaningful global influence.
In contrast, a separate Quebec would have very little residual leverage, and whatever political power it would retain would be based on a declining demographic and economic base.
Therefore, for both these reasons — global interdependence, and Quebec’s existing political leverage within Canada — the PQ is seriously blundering in proposing Quebec independence at this time.
In pure realpolitik terms, the best strategy for Quebec nationalists should be to increase their clout in Ottawa by backing a winning party in the next federal election.
The old strategy of backing a spoiler, the Bloc Québécois, with no chance of forming a government, has proved a huge mistake: It has excluded Quebec from many important national decisions. Sulking and being contrarian is not a smart policy, especially when your objective leverage is diminishing.
When all is said and done, as counterintuitive as it may sound, sovereignty fundamentally runs against Quebec’s vital interests.
A much more subtle and strategic participation in Confederation is the better option.