of the election results that the pundits, columnists, and editorials are universally wrong about, and that is the success of the Bloc Quebecois last night. The bloc took two-thirds (54/75) of Quebec seats in a stunning success. A success that must be even sweeter for them because just a year ago people widely and openly questioned their very existence even within Quebec.
All of the columnists and pundits, however, even ones I like and respect a great deal, are warning that this victory is somehow a victory for the concept of a sovereign Quebec, or even a step towards separation. That is simply not the case; in fact, I think the opposite is true.
This time there are two reasons why people felt comfortable voting for the Bloc. First, I think a solid majority of people is confident that separation is a non-issue at this time. This freed people who normally would never have voted for the Bloc to do so. Second, and the real motivator for these people and others: other than the discredited Liberals, there is no viable political option in Quebec other than the Bloc.
Note that neither reason involves any sense of anger towards Canada. The Bloc, unlike (it seems) the Western elements within the Conservative party, is no longer driven by anger.
Remember that the sponsorship scandal here wasn’t just about mismanagement and waste – it was about bribing and brainwashing Quebecers to have a different attitude towards Canada. It was the ultimate cyncial ploy – and it was all the more cynical because the things that were funded were totally worthy of funding. It was both the why-to-fund and the how-to-fund that were at issue here, not just the how-to-fund (which was the issue in the rest of Canada) or the what-to-fund, which everyone agrees were valid and worthwhile projects.
So this election, in Quebec, was really just an utter rejection of the policies of the Chretien government. The problem – there is nowhere BUT the Bloc for voters to go. The Conservative Party is a non-starter in Quebec. The historic attitude of the Reform/Alliance roots of the party towards Quebec is well known, and no make-up job is going to make it go away. As well, the Bloc itself is specifically a rejection of the old PC coalition that grew up under Mulroney. The NDP and the Bloc share a lot in common on policy, except for the key and extremely important fact that central to the NDP’s social democracy is the fact that, for the NDP, this should stem from a strong federal government. This is completely anathema to the Bloc, but not only to them, but also out of the question for a great majority of Quebeckers, including the Parti Liberal du Quebec.
What this election really signals in the Quebec context was that the old Chretien-era policies with respect to federalism are bankrupt and must be quickly and unceremoniously put to rest. The Liberals have probably 14-18 months to redefine their Quebec policy, and the motivation to do so should be high for them: it will give them a clear majority next time around.
eteba says
Great post.Its comforting to see a Canadian discussing the B.Q. in such terms.
The Liberal Party had mentioned early on that they would wipe the Bloc off the map.Jean Lapiere was also seen by Quebecers as a turncoat.
The anglophone stronghold of the west island remained Liberal.As I read somewhere els Canadians have given a clear indication to all the major partiesas to how they would like Canada run.
Cathie says
Yes, I agree this is a great post — I was very appreciative during the campaign when you pointed out to me, in response to one of my blogs, how Quebec felt about the sponsorship scandal — I don’t think the West, in particular, appreciates this. And the media will now try to create a controversy over the “resurgence of separatism”, and I hope the Bloc handles this.
gio says
Your analyse is by far the best and the most precise I have readed lately on the result of the last federal election. It is very honest and reflex in a very professional way the actual situation.
Salutations, felicitations et au plaisir.
michael says
Thanks all for the very nice comments!
eteba says
The voter turnout in Quebec was only 58.7 percent.Do you think angry liberals stayed home in protest.or was the whole electorate upset with politicians in general.
m-j says
Hey y’all — I’ll add my voice to the chorus of praise for this post… with one exception: “the old Chretien-era policies with respect to federalism are bankrupt and must be quickly and unceremoniously put to rest.” I don’t get this. This conclusion does not square with the events nor results of the election: Mr. Martin offered to unceremoniously end Mr. Chretien’s policies — most notably by sidelining Chretien-era Qc cabinet ministers, recruiting Jean Lapierre and other ex- (and not so ex-) sovereigntists, and signalling none-too-subtly that he does not agree with the Clarity Act, Mr. Chretien’s defining piece of legislation vis-a-vis federalism. This did not reap great rewards at the ballot box. Nor does the election nor its results show that federalism does not work. The electoral system may need some repair — especially to resolve the disparity between popular vote share and seats in parliament — but I don’t think this is exactly an issue of federalism. Maybe I’m just being dense, but I don’t see how the paucity of electoral choices in Quebec is a result of Mr. Chretien’s federalism policies…
Michael says
I think this proves the theory, really, that the results in Quebec were a protest against the Chretien Quebec policy. In general, angry voters stay home, think the whole thing is stupid and not worthy of attention. I don’t think you can assume that the angry voters were Liberal voters though.
In Quebec, some angry voters went Bloc, some ignored the whole thing, and some undoubtedly went Green, Marijuana, and perhaps NDP.
Michael says
M-J, I think actions take precedence over words, and no matter what anyone said about Dion or Lapierre (he needs a good nickname BTW) or the Clarity Act, the sponsorship scandal (adscam, as Paul Wells has it) is the only action on the table that voters were reacting to. BTW Lapierre is not considered a sovereigntist here – he has no cred in those circles. He’s just seen as an opportunist.
I agree that there is some ambiguity though, and we have to look closer at things to see what’s really going on.