PQ should accept reality and ditch its Article 1
Landry’s musings about timing of next referendum looked like a trial balloon
Former premier Bernard Landry, the de facto dean of Quebec’s sovereignty movement, mused over the weekend that talk of a third referendum on independence should be put off until a third Parti Québécois mandate. Given that since its inception, the PQ has yet to govern for more than two consecutive terms, the statement seems either wildly presumptuous or, one hopes, a trial balloon signalling to the troops that surrender should at least be considered.
Landry warned PQ Leader Jean-François Lisée that pitching a referendum to Quebecers prematurely would be disastrous for Quebec and the sovereignist cause. Disinterest in separation continues to be pronounced in Quebec, with more than 80 per cent of Quebecers believing the debate has been settled.
Two years ago, it seemed obvious that the latest former PQ leader (there have been too many to sustain a successful political movement) was the party’s desperate Hail Mary play; Pierre Karl Péladeau was easily the most influential Quebecer still willing to make the case for sovereignty. Things didn’t work out as they hoped, there is no backup plan, and now Lisée has taken referendum planning off the table in the short term.
The PQ, to its credit, seems to have taken a turn away from strategies that saw their leaders presenting a smorgasbord of offensive, culturally specific policies, only to be ultimately rejected by Quebecers.
This new-and-improved PQ is even trying to appeal to anglophones and other minority groups. With (mostly) weary anglo-Quebecers in particular, the outreach appears to be out of principle, because there is little to gain. These are positive steps, but ultimately if PQ leaders continue along the same philosophical trajectory, it seems inevitable that they will conclude that most of their lingering cultural battles can be won, or at least resolved with compromises, within the Canadian context.
Landry’s hypothetical third-term referendum could be scheduled by the PQ tentatively between 2028 and 2030, but let’s not mark our calendars just yet. I wish Landry longue vie, but he would be over 90 and even more immune from the political consequences that would result from helping to perpetuate a floundering, economically prejudicial national project than the sovereignist stalwart is today.
His next reflection, one would hope, could lead him to conclude that since an independent Quebec is at best a long-term proposal, Article 1 of the PQ’s charter (defining it first and foremost as a sovereignist party) should be removed. This would ensure the next decade isn’t wasted on superfluous political debates. It would also open up for the PQ an entire voting pool of at least one-fifth of Quebecers, members of minority communities, for whom sovereignty is generally a deal-breaker.
As unlikely as the “desovereignization” of the PQ would be, it is the party’s best option for gaining — and, more important, holding onto — power. Shelving sovereignty and identity politics more broadly would redefine Quebec’s irregular political blocs along a simpler, more stable left-right spectrum, and would force an increasingly right-leaning Liberal party to adopt policies that are more progressive. By compromising on sovereignty and even with — gasp! — the federal government on matters like education or institutional bilingualism, the PQ could find itself accomplishing more than ever before, while strengthening the status of the French language in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
It should be obvious by now that sovereignist strategies chronically fail and that a better deal with Canada, including an eventual ratification of the Constitution, is the next logical step.
It no doubt is discouraging for Landry and others to find themselves on the wrong end of a lifelong battle, but they can take solace in the fact that most of their federalist opponents, this one included, will always favour special consideration for Quebec’s unique francophone character and Canada’s bilingual institutions; perhaps that’s a compromise that even hardliners could eventually accept.