Author Archives: Martin Renauld

Quebec’s political scene upside down

Posted on by
Reply

Last spring, I wrote a post on the great Daily Gumboot following the federal elections, trying to explain Quebec’s unexpected vote for the NDP. I thought a conservative majority could help sovereignist parties, such as the PQ, so far it has not been the case. Since then, Quebec’s politics has continued moving quite a bit. Pools are extremely volatile, new actors are emerging; others are destroying themselves from within. As May 2th election showed, Québécois seem to look for change, but do not know where to find it.

Let’s start with the old parties. Liberals are in power since 2003, under Jean Charest. They have sunk extremely low. Charest’ government is an administrative one, stay with the flow, “do not make drastic changes and you might get re-elected” type of government. However, his government has lost most of its important ministers (one died, the other left for good private sector jobs), but most of all, it has been crippled with incompetence, bad decisions, and numerous scandals, notably his refusal for a year and half to implement a commission of inquiry on corruption in the construction sector). In the moment, Charest maintains his support only in liberal strongholds.

The Parti Québécois is also facing a storm after another. As the official opposition leader, Pauline Marois has suffered many attacks coming from inside her own party. Last June, 3 MPs left to sit as independents (Jacques Parizeau’s wife, a well-know actor and a former minister) to protest her leadership; another one left to form his own sovereignist party (Option Nationale); lately, a last one has joined the CAQ (see below). On top of this, different groups or influential personalities have called for her to renounce. In the last weeks, Gilles Duceppe has intended what has been described as a failed coup to replace Marois, without results. We have to remember that the PQ was formed as a coalition, including right and left wing nationalists. Now that a referendum seems very unlikely, even if the PQ takes power, this coalition seems to be falling apart.

While old parties are having a rough time, new ones are growing. Québec Solidaire is getting a lot of love from disillusioned left-wingers and former PQ followers. Based mostly in Montreal, it has one elected MP, Amir Kadhir who is party co-leader with well-known feminist Françoise David (yes, they have two equal leaders). Kadhir has been very effective in giving QS a great deal of visibility and raising new issues at the Assamblée Nationale. Pools are around 10% for them and are obtaining more support outside Montreal, which has always been their biggest challenge.  So much so that rumors are running the PQ is looking to make an alliance with QS in the next election. One thing is for sure, QS is stealing votes mainly to the PQ.

Another party just disappeared, the center-right ADQ (Action Démocratique du Québec) who had offered a disappointing performance as the official opposition in 2007-2008 and lost its life-long leader Mario Dumont. Their positions included usual right-wing reforms, such as limiting immigration, slash social programs, etc. After a very difficult year, the ADQ just got integrated in the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), a recently formed political party. Former PQ minister and businessman François Legault has regrouped individuals from all political families (PQ, Liberal –both provincial and federal-, ADQ). It stands as nationalist, yet no sovereignist, and refuses labels. Journalists describe the CAQ as center-right while Legault says they are neither left nor right but pragmatic. Basically, they want to reform the state, fighting bureaucracy while using the state as an economic force. For example, Legault proposes to increase teachers’ salaries but evaluate them to be able to fire the inefficient ones. The CAQ’s program is not very clear still. Its pool numbers were very high at first, now are around 30%. In my opinion, the CAQ main problem will be similar to the PQ’s, getting individuals with different ideologies working together, in short being a coalition… For example, MP François Rebello left the PQ and joined Legault to “undertake a green Quebec” while former ADQ MPs have always been very critical of environmentalists.

Next elections could be this spring or this fall, it is very difficult to say which party will win. For now it is a tie between the CAQ (31%) and Liberals (29%), PQ (25%) being very close behind. Charest could pass trough, since all the other parties are courting francophone votes and he can almost certainly count on most Montreal West Island ridings. However, things change quickly and Québécois seem to change their political tastes even quicker.

Rating Agencies: What’s Wrong With You?

Posted on by
Reply

The financial crisis has tarnished many myths that have been presented as truths during the last decade or so – for example, lower taxes inevitably create wealth, autoregulation works, money trickles down, etc. However, many ideological and concrete elements of the international financial and economical system seem unwilling to die. The legitimacy and role enjoyed by rating agencies is one of them. My opinion on rating agencies is quite clear. The way they actually work is nonsense, hurtful and should be thrown out the window to set a new system.

What are we talking about exactly? There are only 3 major international rating agencies, all are private companies. Their role was initially to rate a business’ viability when entering the stock market to help investors and credit lenders make decisions. Starting in the 80′s, when states’ debts began representing huge financial opportunities, especially third world countries, theses agencies started rating countries as well. Now, they strongly influence the interest a country will pay to borrow on the international financial market. Let’s see what is wrong with all this.

First issue: rating agencies present their activities as simple technical-objective work while in reality they are extremely ideological in their core. For them, neoliberal economics is synonymous with economical science, leaving out a large part of economic thinking. For example, rating agencies do not accept Keynesian principles. A country trying to solve it’s problems applying Keynesian economics would therefore see its rating go down. I am not saying that they are wrong (actually, I am), but it is only my humble opinion. What is important here is that we are talking about IDEOLOGICAL positions, not technical work. Therefore, why should only one side be represented on such important issues? Especially when the ideological positions held by these agencies have proven themselves, if not always, often wrong. The 90′s and the 2001 Argentinean crisis, the highly regulated and robust banking system in Canada, and the Brazilian interventionist economical model are only a few examples of this.

Second issue: agencies do not even respect their own principles, namely competition. A few years ago (just before the international crisis broke out) I gave language classes – I will not say exactly which language, for those who know me might have a good laugh – to a few employees and directors in one of these agencies in their Buenos Aires office. It gave me the opportunity to talk with very interesting and smart individuals about their work. I pointed out to them 3 things that seemed problematic to my outsider eye:

1. An oligopoly, as there is not enough competition in a market limited to 3 companies.

2. Clear conflict of interest, as when they rate a business, guess who the client paying for the rating is – yes, that same business.

3. Considering the types of services they sell, they benefit from global economic growth, when more businesses need ratings for their investments, which translates into more business for them (and the other two agencies).

4. Little or no incentive to give bad ratings and jeopardize their own profits.

The employees basically answered my critiques with one simple and clear solution for these apparent problems: their work is based on reputation, so if they get it wrong they get discredited and lose clients. It seems very logical, but not in a 3 player worldwide market. It seemed obvious at the moment, and got even clearer when the financial crisis broke out that these structural contradictions make it impossible for the agencies to fill their role properly, which most importantly, is to give accurate information and evaluations of different actors (countries, businesses, etc.).

That’s all good, but how does it translate into the real world? The recent financial crisis has highlighted many of those problems. Agencies have given great ratings to crumbling institutions (Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs) and have provided their “seal of approval” to many toxic financial products that accelerated the crisis. To describe the agencies responsibility in the crisis, the US Senate Investigations Subcommittee (bipartisan) said: “when sound credit ratings conflicted with collecting profitable fees, credit rating agencies chose the fees.” Basically, they got it wrong and made money out of it. Following orthodox economics, they should be castigated, run out of business … well, that’s not what happened. Market principles might apply to those being rated, especially those unable to influence the agencies –yes, I’m looking at you Greece – but they certainly do not apply to those who are doing the rating. For rating agencies, it’s still business as usual.

Finally, one could make a case about the agencies’ usefulness in rating enterprises, with some competition and more public control mind you. However, are they equipped to rate countries? Considering that financial issues cannot be isolated from their political, social and cultural contexts, how can agencies adequately rate countries? They simply do not have the expertise to do so. Cutting social services such as health care and education engenders structural consequences a lot more complex then lowering one’s deficit, which in turn affects economic capabilities in the long run. Of course, sometimes it has to be done, but rating agencies, which base their ratings on these types of measures, don’t know anything about these complex consequences and do not pretend to either.

In short, collectively we should stop giving any importance to what rating agencies say. They are in a conflict of interest, are ideologically biased, lack the expertise to rate countries and most of all, their actions hurt millions of people for the benefit of a few. Governments are forced to implement reforms to satisfy the market in the short run, even though they are doomed to fail in the long run. Argentina got out of its terrible crisis at the beginning of the century when they stopped trying to get ratings. Hopefully we can learn from history for once.

–

Masthead photo courtesy of Ken Lund (apparently it’s picture of a rating agency)

Argentina’s presidential elections and Occupy Wall Street

Posted on by
Reply

As the world is noticing the emergence of a popular movement that sparked in Spain last spring, Argentina is holding presidencial elections next week-end. What do these two things have to do with one another you might ask? Not much on the surface, but the almost inevitable reelection of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchener in Argentina on sunday proves that people are willing to experience and support other economical and
financial models, just as Wall Street occupiers are demanding.

To make a long story short, starting at the end of the 80s, Argentina experienced a period of hyper inflation, followed by a near textbook case of neoliberalist reforms. The welfare state was dismantled, most public enterprises were privatized (phone, water, transportation, etc.), financial and commercial markets were deregulated to attract foreign capital. It created a growth bubble in the 90s based on speculation and rising
unemployment, the model crashed in 2001. Basically, Argentinians experienced
what Americans could have experienced if the US did not have the capacity
borrowed limitless to bail out banks in 2008. They had to live by capitalist
rules while the US did not…The country went bankrupted, it could not pay its
bills. It meant 25% employment, millions of people losing their life savings
and a lot of people upset and manifesting in the streets. After almost two
years of political crisis, disillusioned Argentinians elected president a relatively
unkown politician from a small province named Nestor Kirchner. His widow is now
running for reelection, pools give her winning by a comfortable margin.

Kirchernismo basically did what FDR had to do in the 30s, go against orthodox economics and confront financial interests. Both Nestor and Cristina have negotiated hard to pay only a small portion of Argentina’s national debt and have mobilized
national financial resources to promote economic growth aiming at creating
jobs. In short, Argentina has had to live without the approbation of Moody’s or
Fitch, without access to international financial market to borrow. What most
economics would call a context of uncertainty for investments. If one listen to
orthodox economists that should have resulted in a disaster. But helped by a
devaluated pesos and rising prices of commodities (in particular soy beans),
the economy grew by 7 or 8 percent a year since 2003. The state used an important part of its revenues for social and economic programs, notably to stimulate job creating
sectors – which exporting natural resources is not-. Don’t get me wrong, Kirchner’s government has been far from perfect, what I am highlightening is the state interventionism that is associated with such economic growth.

Going back to the Occupy Wall Street, los indignados or les indignés movements, people involved in them have different preoccupations, but all of them are upset about the concentration of wealth and the injustices associated with it. What the argentinian example shows is that state intervention in the economy does not mean economic disaster, quite the contrary. I believe most people in the streets now and an important portion of the silent majority understand that reality. While it is true that protesters
do not propose clear and defined solutions, they imply a reconsideration of how
our economic and financial system works. Growth for the sake of growth is
futile. Economic growth is a mean to better the common good. To do so, state
intervention is necessary. As the argentinian model shows – but also most
industrial countries in the post-war period- is that it is possible to combine
economic growth and wealth redistribution. I would go further, saying that
wealth redistribution is necessary if one wants to maintain a healthy economic
growth.

As I wrote earlier, Argentina’s actual government is far from being perfect. However, it strongly relates to what protesters in Wall Street are asking for. Furthermore, Kirchner’s more than probable reelection demonstrates that when people experience a relatively
effective – while not always efficient- state interventionism, they tend to embrace it because they benefit from it. What is most impressive about the oncoming elections is that the biggest media outlets have been extremely critical of the actual government using right wings arguments (need for less state, less taxes, etc.), but guess who is second in the polls? A moderate socialist…

Masthead photo courtesy of David_Shakbone

Reflections after a trip back home

Posted on by
Reply

I just came back to Argentina, where I live, after a month and a half trip to Quebec, where I’m from. Every time I have to opportunity to go back home, enjoy friends and family, speak my language and feel my culture, all of this fills me with renew energy. Thus, on a personal level, it was a great trip. On the other hand, every visit up north makes me feel uneasy about Quebec and Canada cultural evolution. In Argentina, I pride myself in explaining how Canada and Quebec are different from the US, stretching our collective desire to build a lesser unequal society and protect our cultural distinctiveness. I now feel uneasy defending theses ideas and perceptions about my own country. Obviously, these are merely personal impressions, but I would like to share a few observations/feelings I got while visiting friends and family in Quebec.

First and most striking, politics have made a huge shift on the right. I am not only referring to Harper’s conservative, 19th century governing, but even more so to our collective incapacity to reject and denounce it. I will spare you my list of grievances against his government, let’s only mention his great symbolic gesture of reintroducing the “royal” appellation in the army and Canadian Embassies’ obligation to have a portrait of the Queen. Maybe we should also replace our dollar with the pound and sing God Save the Queen before hockey games… Talking with friends, I was shocked to see how right wing’s arguments/myths have now been integrated and interiorized as to become something banal. A few examples of things I heard/read as if they were simple truths we ought to accept: we pay too many taxes, we are broke, collective transportation is too expensive, we have to create more wealth if one day we want to distribute it (I’m guessing 2075…). The same shift is observable in the Media. Both the Journal de Montreal and Journal de Quebec have always been populist newspapers, however, together with the other main media controlled by Quebecor, TVA (the most watched television network), they now defend a clearly right wing agenda. All of this gave me the impression that left wing individuals do not even define themselves as such and seem to try to temper right wing politics instead of confronting it. Of course, this shift might seem dramatic to me, while other applause it. However, I think our very moderate social-democrat political culture has played an important role in defining both Quebec and Canadian identities, its actual disintegration might have great political and cultural impacts.

The other thing that has upset me while in Quebec concerns the quality of the French language. My parents’ generation has fought to defend and preserve it. Politically, by implementing controversial laws such as Bill 101, but also in their day to day lives. For example, they have “franciser” English words and resist the temptation to incorporate more and more words from the language spoken by 300 millions in North America. Every time I visit, this collective will seems to weaken. I got the impression that we are back to my grand-parents’ time when English words were used to qualify new things or as is happening in France, anything that is cool. For example, since I left “week-end” has replaced “fin de semaine” or “fucking” has appeared in French sentences to design something extreme. The biggest symbolic and linguistic aberration for me resides in the movement created to bring back an NHL team to Quebec City. They call themselves “Nordiques Nation”, nation being pronounced in English… A French name should be something like “la nation Nordiques”. This is breathtaking to me since the Nordiques used to take advantage of all of Quebec nationalist heritage to sell hockey: blue colors, fleur de lys etc. Basically, I feel that Quebec culture shows signs of falling apart, not because of foreign oppression, as it was the case under British rule, but for our incapacity to preserve our own language and culture. Injustices can always be fought and denounced, but what can you do against apathy and insouciance?

One might think I am being overreacting here. It might be the case that these impressions of fast Americanization of my culture say more about my own transformation living abroad or about my idealization of my collective “home”. Anyhow, just as it is depressing to observe a growing cultural uniformity all over the world, it makes me uneasy to see my own little culture getting slowly swept away from within.

 

I´ve read that book!

Posted on by
Reply

A few years ago, I taught history in a Cegep (for those not familiar with the concept, Cegeps are Québec educational institutions that regroup technical formations with pre-university ones, more or less the equivalent of 12th grade and first year of university put together). Even though I met very interesting and dynamic students, I perceived a few major flaws in their formation and interests that would make their university studies and their capacity to be informed citizens compromised, to say the least. One of them was their inability to read effectively and their simple lack of interest to do so. Obviously, many could and did read, however they did not represent a majority of my students. In my own modest opinion, it helps explain that their writing and critical thinking abilities were “limited”. I am not referring to writing complex dissertations about Nietzsche’s conception of God here. More in the lines of backing an opinion with clear arguments, making full sentences or conjugate properly. Many teachers tend to blame laziness and partying to explain poor student performances. Of course, that was common too, however many students were indeed trying hard to write papers or exams but could not do it. They did not possess basic abilities necessary to write a coherent text. Reading might not be the only they lacked, but it would definitely have helped. Briefly put, I am deeply convinced reading is an essential part of academic formation, but more than that, it represents a crucial mean to open our mind and broaden our culture.

That brings me to a great citizen project that was created a few years ago in Argentina and that spread to other Hispanic countries (Spain, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Uruguay and others). Yo leí este libro (I have read that book) leaves books in public spaces – bus stops, parks, etc.- so random people can pick it up and read it. Each book contains directions asking to read the book o leave it there so someone else can read it. In the case a stranger wants to read it, he or she is asked to sign it on the last page and leave it again in a public space. Yo leí este libro intent is to create a solidarity chain of books. This way they hope to stimulate curiosity toward reading, give an opportunity to a person that normally does not read and make people feel part of something bigger, knowing that others want him or her to read.

The fact this initiative emerged in Argentina is not accidental. Argentineans are great readers, at least some sectors of the population. Writers are well known and presented as public figures. Buenos Aires is filled with book stores, often opened until late at night. I am not idealizing Argentina’s reading culture, since my teaching experience here did not show a much better situation than what I saw in Quebec a few years ago. However, I appreciate the idea that many Argentineans perceive reading as a social cause and want to do something about it. I never felt this urgency to preserve and promote reading when I was living in Canada, even working in education…

As for the project Yo leí este libro, I doubt it can ever have a notable impact. After all we are talking about a small project within funding, competing with playstations, internet, cable TV and the rest. Nonetheless, I am impressed with the effort…

Spanish revolution

Posted on by
Reply

Since the 15th of May, thousands of Spaniards have taken over plazas all over the country. Mainly composed of young citizens, the 15-M -as this movement has been called- has emerged in a context of economic distress in which more than 40% of youth is unemployed and government is making drastic cuts to face the financial and economic crisis. Even though the roots of the problem might seem economic, their criticisms are profoundly political.

Their slogan “Democracia real ya” (real democracy now) and “No les votes” (don’t vote for them) denounce a sterile bipartidism, consequence of an unrepresentative electoral system, in which citizens involved in 15-M do not feel represented and think decisions are made for the benefits of wealthier members of society. 15-M is not an organization per se; we could label it a protest community: there is no leader or spokesperson, nor do they have a detailed program. Essentially, 15-M refers to a loose red of organizations and individuals sharing similar demands. Decisions are taken in asambleas following opened and free discussions. These assemblies allow any one to participate and usually seek consensus or at least overwhelming majorities to approve resolutions or decisions. This combination of heterogeneity (unions, unemployed, students, retirees, etc.) and “horizontalism” makes it very difficult for authorities or political parties to control or co-opt the movement. Most people involved have abandoned traditional canals of representations, such as political parties, to reject an economic and political system they feel excludes them.

In front of this innovative protest community, a few questions emerge. Can this engender long lasting changes? Does it represent a new way of making politics? Will 15-M disappear as fast as it emerged or will it become an active actor in Spanish politics? Forecasting the future is beyond my capacity, however looking at the 2001-2002 Argentinean experience might give us a few hints of what could happen next. In 2001, after a decade of neoliberal reforms, Argentina’s financial system collapsed. The economy already in a bad shape did the same. In reactions, people took the streets. On one side, piqueteros –unemployed groups who had appeared in the 90s- blocked streets to demand direct help (jobs, food, housing). On the other, upper and middle classes performed cacerolazos; basically going in the streets with kitchen pots making as much noise as one can. They chanted “Que se vayan todos” (they must all leave), directed at Argentina’s “political class”. Middle class neighborhood also saw the apparition of asambleas, horizontal and usually independent from political parties. Just as in Spain now, Argentineans rejected their political parties and perceived economic reforms as deeply unjust. At the end of it, they saw 5 presidents swear oath in a month…

A decade after the events, most of this intense mobilization has disappeared from Argentinean politics. Some piqueteros organizations still exist, but they have lost legitimacy in the public eye. Others have been integrated in the political structure, receiving government aid and unconditionally backing the actual center-left government. For their part, asambleas have almost completely vanished. People lost interest or could not keep up with a form of mobilization entirely dependent on individual involvement. Those that have managed to survive are marginalized and radical in their positions, pushing “moderates” citizens out. Sure these events and collective actions have inspired other groups, but as political actors, both asambleas and piqueteros could not maintain their presence and influence in national politics.

Who knows what will happen to 15-M. They might obtain some kind of electoral reforms, which would open the door to new political forces. However, their window of opportunity can close quickly. As the Argentinean experience shows, it is very difficult to keep mobilizing thousands of people without formal leadership and some sort of centralized structure.

Can we save declining communities?

Posted on by
Reply

If you are an adept of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, you probably saw Aasif Mandvi’s bit on the Quebec town of Asbestos. Rightfully so, the comedian/journalist ridicules Asbestos desire to sell Asbestos to India, even if a scientific consensus exists about its great danger for human health. It made me think about another aspect of this issue, apart from moral consideration of selling a dangerous product to an emerging country I mean. Why would people of Asbestos accept to compromise that much with their conscience? Especially when they have themselves experienced asbestos consequences on health. Does it reflect desperation of a community totally dependent on one single economic activity? Asbestos is not alone facing a situation where it’s main, if not only, economic activity is declining or simply vanishing. What should we do for these communities? Should our governments invest to diversify their economies? Help people move? Or just let market forces take care of it?

It is not as simple as it seems. Most of these communities have been established to provide labor force for natural resources extraction. Being inevitably temporary, mining is especially prone to create these difficulties. Each case is different, but some towns have been home of two, sometimes three generations of miners. When the mine closes down, people lose their jobs, their houses and their community as a whole. Many are force to leave, while they cannot sell their home. Who would buy a house in Murdochville, Asbestos or Schefferville? On the other hand, most jobs in mining are very well paid and workers know from the get go that their mine will close at some point. Maybe they should have a plan for when that day comes.

In my opinion, our governments face three choices. First, they can wash their hand and stay out of it. Without sufficient economic activities, communities should be let alone to die out, people abandon their house and go somewhere to find a job. This does not imply any direct cost; however it might result in some social distress and political discontent. Second, our governments could invest to encourage new economic activities. This avenue might not be an easy one, since many communities are geographically isolated and lack an educated labor force. Quebec provincial government has tried to save Murdochville, situated in the Gaspésie region, after it’s mine closed in 2002. Murdochville received the SAAQ (Société d’Assurance Automobile du Québec, a parapublic organization) call center in 2004, in addition to subsidies for installing windmill and for touristic projects. Similarly, people could receive help to relocate somewhere else. Again, this might seem unfair to others. After having earn good salaries, knowing that it would stop sometime, these citizens would get extra help that is not available for most people losing their jobs.

The third option involves long term planning and political courage, so it might not be the most probable avenue. Mining companies pay very little taxes for exploiting our resources. For example, Quebec receives between 0.5% and 1.5% in royalties (after numerous deductions), other provinces do a little better though (Quebec provincial government has announced it will modify the mining code). We are not talking about small entrepreneurial companies, most are huge transnational companies making enormous profits out of public resources. Therefore, we should tax more mining (in general, as a principle) and create funds, paid both by companies and workers, to be ready for the post-mining era. Some communities already do this, but I suggest that provincial governments take the initiative and ensure that companies take responsibility for their labor force and their communities.

I am now aware of how other provinces handle the issue, maybe some do a better job at planning the aftermath for communities dependent on one activity, however it remains an issue in Quebec. When prices are high and resources available, some regions live very well, as it is the case for Abitibi right now. When prices are low or resources exhausted, many communities face unemployment and distress. In my view, these communities exemplified at the micro level dilemmas we face as societies at a macro level and possible consequences of “laissez-faire” ideology can have on our communities if we do not take charge.

Orange wave in Quebec

Posted on by
2

Wow, the NDP swept Quebec and nobody saw it coming, at least not to that extent. In my opinion, these huge gains by the NDP say more about Quebec’s relationship with the other parties than with Layton’s. Since “les commandites”, or sponsorship scandal Liberals are a no factor in Quebec Politics. Until now, they have been surviving because of strong support by some ethnic minorities and Anglophones in Montreal. Within francophone media and regions, they were still associated with corruption and intents of crushing Quebec’s right to self determination (law on clarity, sponsorship scandals). Bringing Jean Chrétien in the campaign was not very constructive either, just reinforcing a more of the same image.

Harper’s conservatives have tried to “win” Quebec during last two elections, but let that strategy go this time around to focus on Ontario, which worked well for him. Since Lévesque’s “Beau Risque” with Mulroney in the 80s, Conservatives never had any real support in Quebec. Basically, Conservatives clash with most social democrat consensus established in the province: a soft approach on crime, critical view of military actions, commitment to social justice and limited inequalities, support for culture as in crucial element of identity, progressive taxation. Even though, these general political values have been challenged by a right wing minority, especially in the Quebec City region, they still form core values of Quebec society. Furthermore, Conservative undemocratic tendencies have been widely covered by Quebec media. At the end of the day, they only got 16% of the vote in the province.

The Bloc is clearly the biggest loser. Most NDP votes came from Duceppe’s party. I believe most people who switched to NDP did not see it coming either. Duceppe has been in Ottawa forever, his party is now perceived as an old party, just like the liberals. A kind of “malaise” was always associated with the Bloc, even in sovereignist circles, since if independence was to happen one day, it will happen in Quebec City, not in Ottawa. For many elections, people voted Bloc lacking option more than out of conviction.  Seeing that the NDP could actually win a few seats, many (a mean many) voters abandoned the Bloc. Duceppe and his MPs did not have a great campaign either, they were perceived as tired, “bitchy” and quite negative.

So why vote for the NDP then? In my humble opinion, most people just gave it a shot. In the last decade, cynicism has dominated politics. The provincial government (liberal) is mediocre, seen as incompetent, if not corrupted. At the federal level, Quebecois have been voting for the Bloc for 20 years without any concrete change in Quebec status within Confederation, nor did it stop right wing conservatives to take power. So the NDP seems like the only change available. They made a positive campaign, differentiating themselves for bickering and personal attacks widespread with Bloc and Conservative strategies.  Jack Layton is perceived as “un bon jack”, an expression meaning that some one is a good, pleasant person. The same can be said about Thomas Mulcair (NDP’s only MP until yesterday), who is highly respected, notably for renouncing a minister position to protest some of Premier Charest’s politics. Joined all this to the fact that NDP’s values tend to fit Quebec’s social democratic tendency and you get part of the explanation for the orange wave. In a few words, a vast number of Quebecois voted primarily for change and new faces. Even though the NDP is an old party, it is not perceived as such in Quebec.

What now? Traditionally, the NDP has had hard time in Quebec for its failure to accommodate Quebec’s demands for autonomy, clearly conflicting with NDP’s centralizing tendency. It still seems to be NDP’s biggest challenge, along the fact that many of MPs are inexperienced. Now with its majority of MPs from Quebec, Layton will have the obligation to precise his vision of Quebec-Ottawa relations. It will be very interesting to see how he will attempt to negotiate this tension between respecting Quebec desire for provincial autonomy and NDP internal culture. The latter will have to change and adapt, or this whole wave will disappeared as fast as it came. Remember that a significant portion of the vote came from electors that had previously voted for the Bloc, defending independence and Quebec’s autonomy at all cost.

What about the Bloc? For now, it seems it had disappeared from the map. Its survival will probably depend on the NDP’s performance. If they convince Quebecois they can defend their interests in Ottawa, the Bloc will not come back. The real issue however, is what does it mean for the separatist movement? As many times before, many already announced the death of separatism. I strongly disagree with this widespread position. Quite the contrary, I believe the next four years could see separatism return to Quebec politics. First of all, we have a majority conservative government, with extremely little representation in Quebec. If Harper decides to radically reform our country under right wing principles, this could create a huge backlash in Quebec. Harper could become the best thing that ever happened to separatism. Secondly, the PQ is likely to form the next provincial government, considering how unpopular Liberals are and it will benefit from militants and resources until now used by the Bloc. This could engender even more conflict with Harper. Thirdly voting massively for the NDP could be interpreted as giving another chance to the Canadian experience. For most Quebecois (even federalists), Canada as it is does not work. Quebec has not signed the 1982 constitution, money is in Ottawa while needs are in the provinces (education, health care), and Trudeau’s dream of a bilingual country was a total failure. So, if Layton and his party come to be perceived as inadequate, just are Liberals and Conservatives, then what hope Quebecois will have for their place in Canada? As we say “ça passe ou ça casse”.

 

Jean-Francois Mercier: a candidacy based on contestation

Posted on by
Reply

If you want to find a symbol of what is wrong about politics, André Arthur might be your man. He was elected as an independent MP in the Portneuf riding (near Quebec City).  The former “trash” radio host, who made a name for itself talking against welfare beneficiaries, left-wingers, immigrants and politicians in general, currently drives buses and make vacuum cleaner advertisements, which explains why he is so often absent from Parliament. Quebec might send to the Commons another public figure as independent MP. Comedian Jean-Francois Mercier announced last week that he will be candidate in the upcoming federal elections in the Chambly-Borduas riding (Montreal South Shore).

Mercier has made a name for himself first as a writer for different TV shows, most notably the very interesting “Les Bougons”. However, most québécois know him for his “gros cave” character; you could translate this to “big jerk”. His humor is outrageous and provocative, however it often includes social critics. English Canadians might remember a mini scandal his sketch had provoked during the “Bye Bye 2008” presented at Radio-Canada.

The comedian/candidate explains his decision by the fact that he never voted in federal elections, considering no party represents his views. Recognizing that some individual politicians are working hard and have truly honest and noble motivations, he argues that our political system does not allow any significant change to happen. Contrary to Arthur’s clearly hypocrite approach, Mercier’s initiative is presented as an act of contestation. To do so, he is helped by two other comedians Mike Ward (his political aide) and Guy Nantel (his bodyguard).

Mercier embraces his well-known provocative style to campaign. His slogan is “Là, s’t’assez tarbarnak!”, that could be translated to “That’s fucking enough”. He is the head of the “Futur Parti Pour La Gloire”, future so he does not really have to form a real party. Some of his promises include: installing floats on Champlain Bridge so that when it falls, it will be easier to pick up; building a second Mercier bridge (to his honor), 12 lines each way, one line reserved for Hummers; instead of buying 65 F-35, he proposes to build one huge jet to “scare the shit” out of other countries. If elected, he will give back his salary to the community since “one can surely lives off bribes” and promises to go to Ottawa only when his vote could make the government fall, hence limiting his impact on the environment. Obviously, Mercier is laughing at the whole campaign, however, he argues that his intent is to denounce politicians’ stonewalling and the political system inability to make change happen. Every vote he gets will demonstrate how people are disabused and fed-up with our political system.

In addition to make you laugh, Mercier does put forward some interesting questions and debates. What kind of impact theses contestations initiatives have? Is it fair or useful to use the electoral process to denounce its shortcomings? Is Mercier accentuating current cynicism or contributing to bring new voters into political debate, even if this mean by showing their total disagreement with the whole system? Watching this unattractive and boring campaign, completely out of touch with my preoccupations (environment, social inequality, electoral reform, Quebec’s place within the federation), I wonder if a radical denunciation is not indeed necessary. On the other hand, initiatives such as Mercier do not propose any concrete modifications. The only hope remains that thousands turn out and vote for him, so that other parties realize many voters are willing to get to the polls if they identify with candidates. Even though I share many of Mercier’s preoccupation and salute his efforts to contribute to political debates, I am not convinced his election would be positive for our democracy. It remains an opened question… You can see some videos on youtube (this one has subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tqyDivCIQc) or visit his web site http://www.jeanfrancoismercier.com.

 

 

“Facebook Revolution”

Posted on by
4

Popular protests in Northern Africa have attracted a lot of media attention in the last two months and I would like to bring your attention on one particular aspect of its coverage by western media. Repeatedly, journalists have referred to a “facebook revolution” or “twitter protesters” to describe what was happening in Tunisia and Egypt. In my opinion, this insistence on the predominance of Facebook and Twitter reflects western obsession, first with itself, and second with our scientific-technical complex, as if technology were always a source of progress.

Even though accurate and posed media coverage is always available, as it was the case with Egypt and Tunisia popular mobilization, a large part of media coverage has emphasized clichés and insisted on the importance of Facebook and Twitter. Basically, the argument goes that some young people, frustrated by Mubarak’s and Ben Ali’s corrupted regimes, started facebook pages about getting mobilized and spread the word on Twitter, then ten of thousands of people gathered in the streets. For example, transforming a Google employee (Wael Ghonim) into a star of the “facebook revolution” is part of this trend. Sometimes journalists do not directly say that Facebook or Twitter were causes of the revolution, but the argument is generally implicit, first a facebook page, second thousands of people in the street demonstrating, as if there were a direct, automatic correlation between the two.

Of course, I am not arguing that social medias do not have any impact and that they did not play a role in forcing those two dictators out. Internet in general, or specific elements such as Facebook or Twitter, can certainly help mobilize citizens, just as they can help doing business or organize political campaign. However, they remain tools; they are not causes of political or social phenomena. In a recent conference about social unrest in Northern Africa, a well respect Argentinean intellectual described Twitter as a very efficient phone, nothing more…. I would not go that far, but I strongly believe its role in Egypt and Tunisia has been overestimated.

The most important concern with this type of media coverage is to transform a specific technology into a cause, as if the technology in itself engendered a “revolution”. If you want to make the argument, then a better access to information and facilitated communication did help considerably to mobilize and organize protesters. However, television (such as Al Jazeera), radio, internet in general, cell phones must be considered as a “package”, which contributes to making people aware of other protesters and what was happening. But again, that does not explain why these mobilizations happen at these particular moments and times.

The other problem with a supposed “facebook revolution” comes from internet access. In Tunisia, the site internetworldstats.com estimates that in a population of 10.2 millions, 3.6 enjoy access to internet; so about 34% of the population. In Egypt, it only gets to 21%. We probably have to lower this number when political unrest started, since theses statistics regroup access at home, at work, or in internet cafés, the last two being far less available when repression begins. Furthermore, the Egyptian government was quick to block access to internet as soon as the 28th of January, a few days after mobilization started. It is probable that cell phones played a bigger role than Facebook or Twitter, especially once manifestations had started; nobody talks about the “nokia revolution”… If you wonder, only 5.5% of Libyans are internet users.

Making such historical events about Facebook or Twitter has two important implications. First, it displaces the debate away from real, more complex issues. If we try to understand the structural causes of these popular uprising, we inevitably start talking about corruption and authoritarian regimes. If we look even deeper we begin to see economic distress. Both Tunisia and Egypt face severe poverty and unemployment issues. As we all know, Ben Ali and Mubarak were geopolitical allies of Western Powers, but they also followed their economic precepts. Under Ben Ali, Tunisia followed the IMF’s recommendations and implemented neoliberal reforms, which ended up failing the Tunisian population. Moreover, food prices were only seldomly mention in mainstream media, even though they played a major role in fomenting a sense of injustice and push many poor people to join protesters. I doubt that someone worried about bread prices spend of lot time on facebook…

In my opinion, the emphasis on Facebook and Twitter in the media coverage shows our obsession to make every world event about us. Egyptians and Tunisians could not simply have used the tools at their dispositions to fight political and economic injustice, no, in reality they want to be exactly like us and they could do it because they finally got what we have: Facebook. It seems to me very sad that we have to simplify to this extent important events to interest people and make them feel good about themselves (or our society). Calling these events a “Facebook revolution” is as ridiculous as to call the French Revolution the “pamphlet revolution” or the Cuban revolution the “radio revolution”.