Canada and Quebec: stalemate to checkmate? THE swift passage through the Canadian parliament of the 'Clarity Bill' is the latest manifestation of a depressing political evolution in the country. The Clarity Bill seeks to knock down the key pillars of the 1970s compromise between Ottawa and Quebec.
Canada * were a number of reasons for this. Chief among them were the strength and dynamism of the Quebec national project, certain progressive socio-economic and "utopian" features of Trudeau's Canadian project (such as official bilingualism and multiculturalism), as well as the relative weakness of both national projects, especially in relation to the American behemoth to the south.
During much of this time, commanding majorities of Trudeau Liberals were consistently returned to Ottawa by Quebeckers, at the same time as Parti Québécois governments were voted into office in Quebec City.
### Turning point
The great turning point was the 1982 The arent turning noint was the 1980 repatriation of the Constitution against Quebec's wishes. This constituted a major offensive by Ottawa to break the stalemate with Quebec. The victory of the "no" side in the 1980 referendum on sovereigntyassociation had convinced Ottawa that the time was ripe to go on the offensive. The repatriation signalled a major step forward in the emergence of a "liberal imperialist" Canadian national project. In one fell swoop, the Liberals would attempt to negate the multinational character of the country and entrench an American approach to the relationship between individual and group rights, the political process and the law. This proved the undoing of the Trudeau Liberals.
As a result of the Charter, the country had become that much more "ungovernable", precisely at a time when capitalist and state elites were demanding radical counter-reforms of the kind being implemented by Thatcher and Reagan. As a result, the Liberals were roundly defeated in the 1984 elections, largely due to the collapse of support in Quebec. The Tories under Brian Mulroney came to power in alliance with a section of Quebec sovereignists and nationalists. In hindsight, the Mulroney Tory years (1984-1993) can be seen as a bumpy and incomplete transition from the "Keynesian" or "Welfare State" order to the new "leaner and meaner" order of neo-liberal globalization. It was, among other things, the alliance with sovereignists and nationalists in Quebec that held the Tories back. But that same alliance also ultimately proved their undoing.
When the Tories and the Canadian International Viewpoint #321 May 2000 27
RAGHU KRISHNAN* DANDITIDIOLINAN*
•T overturns the assumption that Ottawa is politically and legally obliged to accept the outcome of the democratic process in Quebec, and to negotiate with Quebec on that basis. In addition to attacking the post-War Quebec national project, the ruling Liberal Party have also succeeded in destroying the hope the post-War Canadian national project once inspired.
Following the Second World War, Canada's fundamental political projects began to undergo a slow process of disintegration and recomposition. The tremendous weakening of British influence and the emergence of a "Keynesian" social consensus — with a greatly enhanced role for an interventionist and redistributive state — fed the emergence of two distinct national projects in the country. The first was a "Canadian" one; the second "Québécois"
### Oppressive features
Both national projects were capitalistimperialist in nature and had oppressive features, particularly with respect to Native peoples. But in terms of wealth and state power, the Canadian project was unquestionably the dominant one of the two. This meant that, from the start, the Canadian national project had the greater set of specific responsibilities. Unfortunately, it has patently failed to live up to these responsibilities. Tension between the two new national projects was inevitable, but in theory the relatively progressive "Keynesian" socio-economic order and fluid political and ideological environment could have enabled the two to come to some accommodation. The great tragedy of the last 40 years - for it was Quebec's Quiet Revolution in 1960 that blew open the process and opened up a number of possibilities — is that no such arrangement was worked out.
There are many reasons for this, but the main responsibility lies with the specific choices made in Ottawa in the late 1960s by the political representatives of the Canadian national project, chief among them the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau. The emerging Canadian national project would deny the existence of another nation and another legitimate and modern national project within Canadian territory. Trudeau held to this view, even though the emerging national consensus in Quebec did not negate the existence of the Canadian nation. In part, this was linked to the Canadian elite's fear of the more explosive political and social dynamics at work in Quebec — where the national project was also a battlefield between a subversive and militant working-class and youth movement, on the one hand and a rather weak Québécois "national bourgeoisie" on the other.
### Unhappy story
The unhappy story of these 40 years can be divided into two parts: the period from 1960 until 1982; and the period from 1982 until the present time. From the beginnings of the Quiet Revolution in 1960 until the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, a kind of working compromise or stalemate was reached between the two national projects. There
* Canada
Canadian PM Jean Chrétien and Finance Minister Paul Martin political community generally (the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords) failed to right the wrongs of the 1982 unilateral repatriation, the Quebec Tory MPs broke away to form the Bloc Québécois. Coupled with the rise of Reform in the West, this defection in Quebec led the federal Tores to their worst defeat ever — in the 1993 elections, which brought the current batch of Chrétien-Martin Liberals to power.
The balance sheet of the Open Letter Campaign (an initiative based around an Open Letter against the Clarity Bill which attracted widespread support from academics, trade unionists, feminists and socialists) is mixed.
### Impressive network
The campaign has been defeated on the most important question — the adoption of the Clarity Bill. But it was able to establish an impressive network of contacts and organize a handful of relatively successful events. This shows that there is indeed a current of opinion whose ideas and energies can and should be mobilized now and into the future. The Clarity Bill has become law because for the time being, there is very little political space outside Quebec for those who want Canada's laws, institutions and identity to reflect the coun try's multinational reality. We are for the most part hostages of the broader political situation, and of course of developments in Quebec and among First Nations.
One of the central reasons underlying the failure of the Campaign is the wider situation within the English-speaking Left
There is clearly a generational divide around the matter of Canada's national questions. One weakness of the campaign was its inability to bring many young activists on board, even though the country
28 International Viewpoint #321 May 2000 is meant to be experiencing a youth and student radicalization of sorts. Most of those involved in the Campaign were in their 40s and 50s. Like much of our increasingly "Americanized" English-speaking Canada, the sights of today's young activists are set southwards - to Seattle, Washington and New York.
This is in large part a natural and encouraging response to the emergence of a broad and creative movement against neo-liberalism south of the border. But we simply cannot neglect the work of rebuilding links between radical and progressive youth milieux in Canada and Quebec. Recent youth protests in Quebec have peaked the attention of radicals in the rest of Canada, and this bodes well for the future. A specific strategic failing of the Campaign was its inability to make any inroads into that section of left-liberal opinion which has been rethinking its approach to Quebec since the 1995 referendum and the neo-liberal transformation of the federal Liberals. Many in this current of opinion have realized that little or nothing remains of the tacit agreement between themselves and the Trudeau-era Liberals.
In exchange for a strong centralized government committed to social programs, regional redistribution and a foreign policy independent of the Americans, this current was willing to back and even champion Ottawa's pitched-battle approach to Quebec sovereignty.
For many, this deal is dead and cannot be resuscitated. If in future we can be brought together around this and other questions, we would have an ally with considerable strength and depth right across › the country. Here again, for this to happen the country Here again. for this to happen we are largely dependent on a number of factors beyond our control — in particular, the crisis in the NDP, the rise of the hard-Right Canadian Alliance and the state of siege mentality this is sure to create.
There is also reason for concern when so few non-whites and immigrants express support or interest in a campaign of this sort, especially since they are disproportionately involved in a number of other progressive campaigns, especially in the Toronto area where most of them live.
The real failing of the Campaign, however, was its inability to attract support from any First Nations individuals or organization, although the Campaign was quite right to forge ahead nonetheless. Still, Ottawa now holds most of the cards in Canada's complex national-question poker game. It will take more than the goodwill of a handful of people from the pan-Canadian Left to reshuffle the deck.
### Developments to watch
There are two symmetrical sets of developments on the political Left in Quebec and Canada worth watching. In Quebec, the Rassemblement pour une alternative politique (RAP) is preparing to launch a new Left-sovereignist political organization in the Fall. The RAP is made up of left-labour forces, breakaway elements from the left-wing of the Parti Québécois, and a number of small socialist and activist groups.
Although nowhere near as far along in the game, in English-speaking Canada some momentum is building around former Canadian Auto Worker (CAW) leader Sam Gindin's proposal for a "structured political movement" of the Left. A conference is set for the Fall in Toronto to see what can be done by those who have expressed interest in the project thus far.
Even moderate success for both, with a clear orientation to work together into the longer term, would breathe some life into all our talk of Canada-Quebec-First Nations solidarity, accelerating some of the developments over which we have thus far been able to have little influence. It would also be a big boost for the pan-Canadian Left in the fight against neo-liberalism and capitalism - against NAFTA and the FTAA, towards a multinational Canada within a democratic-socialist federation of the peoples of the Americas. * Raghu Krishnan was an activist in the Open Letter campaign.
He is a member of the Fourth International Caucus of the
NSG and can be reached at <[email protected]>
HE answers to those questions need to be placed within the historical framework of Australian politics in this vast country which began its "modern" existence as a penal colony and developed later as a colonial settler state of "Mother England" in 1788. Ever since federation in 1901, Australia has effectively been a twoparty state. Government has either been in the hands of coalitions of conservative parties, or, less frequently, in those of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The conservative coalition of the Liberal and National parties form the federal government today. Smaller parties, including those of the Left, have effectively been frozen out of the parliamentary political process. In fact there has only ever been one parliamentarian from a party to the left of the ALP; Fred Paterson from the Communist Party of Australia (CPA), who sat in the Queensland state parliament in the 1940s. Although the country's trade union movement largely remains affiliated to the ALP, in recent years that party has earned the sobriquet of "Alternative Liberal Party" and jettisoned its socialist rhetoric.
### Peculiar system
The explanation for the domination of "official" politics by the ALP and the Conservatives lies at least in part in the peculiar voting system for the House of Representatives. Known as "Preferential Voting" (PV) it has nothing in common with the proportional representation systems common in Europe and ensures the dominance of the large parties. Smaller parties have been known to win up to one million votes, yet fail to capture even one House of Reps seat. The voting system for the Senate is on the basis of proportional representation, but with individual states as the electorates and with the same number of senators regardless of the wide differences in population. This has favoured the smaller, more conservative states, but it has also allowed some representation to parties such as the Greens.
The Australian working class has a history of industrial militancy second to none. Melbourne stonemasons won the 8 hour day in the 1850s and by 1920 the miners at Broken Hill had won a 35 hour week. The maritime workers have an exemplary record of internationalism, including taking industrial action to prevent steel being shipped to Japan in the 1930s in solidarity with the people of China; bans on all
Australia *