A little history first, the Malvinas are under British rule since 1833, following French, Spanish, and short-lived Argentinean occupations (destroyed in 1829 by an American war ship). Because of its proximity with mainland (464 km), the fact they were expulsed by force and their past possession of the islands (including Spanish rule before independence), Argentina never recognized British authority over the islands. One must also note a long tradition of British imperialism in Argentina, mostly economically, but also militarily, such as the consecutives invasions in 1806 and 1807. Which brings us to 1982. An incompetent and corrupted military dictatorship, faced with its own failure to redress Argentina’s economy and eager to move the attention away from its terrible human rights record (about 30 000 individuals “disappeared” during the dictatorship), saw the invasion of the British Islands as great national cause that could get them popular support. Which it did for a few weeks, until Margaret Thatcher decided to response with force. The British navy crushed an inadequately equipped and formed Argentinean military. The truth is, the generals thought Great Britain would negotiate or maybe even let go of the islands. Result, more than 900 deaths, and the end of Argentinean military dictatorship who was completely discredited both in Argentina and abroad.

In the 21st century, Las Malvinas plays a similar role it has played in 1982. Faced with slower economic growth for the first time since 2003 (although Argentina still enjoys an enviable economic situation and is still far from recession), Kirchner and her government are stimulating national fervor around Las Malvinas issue. Denouncing Great Britain, asking to negotiate the islands’ return to Argentina comes with no internal political cost and it gives Kirchner an image of power in front of imperialist countries. It brings together left wing entities – Imperialism, to this day, is part of many left wing discourses – and right wing groups – trying overcome of a national humiliation -. In my opinion, this is the main reason why this conflict has reappeared in diplomatic circles, combined to the fact that Las Malvinas are surrounded by immense reserves of offshore oil. Argentina is in dire need of energy sources, as the recent expropriation of the oil company Repsol-YPF shows, and could settle for a deal that would include share exploitation of these reserves.

The British point out to auto determination principles (most islanders want to stay under British rule) while the Argentineans underline some historical and geographical reasons to back their claims. At the end of the day, that the small community of las Malvinas are Argentinean or British matters little in the actual conflict. It is more a question of internal politics and interests than international law. Even if nothing comes out of these diplomatic and media actions, it would have served the simple political purpose of bringing Argentinean behind a national cause once again.

artbrom / flickr

I have been living in Buenos Aires for 4 years now. Usually people do not know much about Canada. Sometimes I get weird face when I say I’m from Canada even if I clearly speak with a french accent. First thing Argentineans mention is how cold it must be. Some think we don’t even have a summer. The second element most associated with my home country is ice hockey (“ice” is necessary since grass hockey is quite popular in Argentina).  The other day, I was working in a café when a saw NHL images on TV, I was very surprised since argentinean media do not even cover the Stanley cup finals –except its riots of course. Unfortunately, the TV show was presenting images from the Rangers/Devils game that started with a few fights, with the title “Ice hockey or boxing?” As too often, I felt a little bit of shame, as a hockey fan, but also as Canadian/Quebecois. It is somewhat difficult to explain to Argentineans that I enjoy watching hockey, it is a sport of speed and beauty and hockey is part of my culture. Hockey’s image here is limited to fights, violence and dirty hits, closer to Ultimate Fighting than anything else.

Fighting has been part of hockey for so long that it seems almost natural to canadian eyes. However, when you see it from the outside, it seems ridiculous, even idiotic. Try to explain to someone not familiar with north american hockey that fighting is allowed but not really because it is punished; referees let players fight, if they previously  agreed to it; and that it does not have anything to do with the object of the game (scoring goals), except maybe “change the momentum”… Believe me, it is impossible to make any sense out of it. Take any other sport, even very physical ones such as rugby or football, and insert fighting in it… it just looks silly and pathetic. I always thought fighting was not a very important part of hockey and that we could easily do away with it, but its absurdity really hit me a few years ago. I was in my hometown with my uruguayan girlfriend. She was getting familiar with our culture and asked to see a hockey game. Since I was bringing here to a small town, semi-pro game, I warned her that it could get violent. She thought I was talking about physical plays, much like rugby… she was horrified when came the staged fights, she could not believe it. There was not much I could say, it is true that if one has not been desensitized to it from a young age, it does seem barbaric.

As for anything else, change can be tough to come about. If you are old enough, you might remember the old days when car belts were not mandatory or when people could smoke in bars, restaurant and hospitals… Although it seems ridiculous now, many resisted when we collectively decided to modify these situations. I believe we came to a point fighting has to be completely eliminated from our national sport. We could not accept this kind of health risk in any other profession. We do know now that hitting someone’s head repeatedly damages his brain permanently… shocking that it took us so long to figure this one out. Still, how can we accept to see young adults hurting each other like this, for something not even directly related to the game itself, as last year’s death of a few “enforcers” forced us to see. With rare exceptions in the russian KHL, fighting does not exist in international and european hockey, nor does it in the NCAA, and canadian junior is seriously talking about banning it as well. Hopefully, the NHL will follow this trend. It might be difficult to get there, considering that the Bruins just gooned their way to the Stanley Cup. Even the Canucks have recently travelled back to the 80s by adding muscles and “enforcers” to their lineup… The biggest problem remains that some important NHL market keep selling hockey using violence. Added to the NHL extremely conservative management, fighting might very well keep making me ashamed of our national sport in front of my argentinean friends. I might have to start pretending I like baseball…

As newspapers from all over the world have discussed, Argentina has faced a terrible train tragedy last week resulting in 50 deaths and 600 people injured. Obviously, accidents happen, a normal reaction would be to investigate what caused it (material or human failings) and make sure such tragedy does not happen again. In this particular case, it is more complicated since the punctual cause matters less than the structural issues related to argentinian trains. Such accident was to be expected (since 2009, 70 persons have died in train accidents) and many actors had warned public opinion and authorities of the poor state of Buenos Aires communal trains – many of them dating from the 1950s.

As so many problems in Argentina, they are better understood from an economic point of view. All trains still in function in the country were put in place by the state after the second-world war and its union became one of the strongest, very close to the peronist party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism). Under President Carlos Menem government (1989-1999), Argentina followed neoliberal precepts to implement radical reforms. Which meant privatizing most public companies such as trains, water distribution, electricity, phone, etc. So trains were acquired by private enterprises, paying little for the infrastructure and to this day getting subsidies to maintain tickets price relatively low. Government officials has been in charge of controlling security and services provided. In the case that interest us, TBA acquired its trains in 1994.

What is the problem then? Shouldn’t private companies be more efficient than the government to run things? When circumstances are right, it might be so. It is definitely not the case here. The whole argument behind private advantage over public is based on competition. Any company will try to offer the best services at the lowest price possible to get more customers and ultimately more profits. However, communal trains rarely face real competition. |In Buenos Aires, customers have little or no alternatives, since having a car is very expensive, impossible for most Argentinians using trains to go to work. In any case, traffic jams also represent a real problem in Buenos Aires. Furthermore, TBA, as most privatized services, enjoys a virtual monopole. It got the trains in the 90s and since then are cashing in, squizing every penny out of their “investment”. In this context, the enterprise has no incentive to invest in security measures, renew its trains or even offer a comfortable travelling experience. Trains are full, people do not have any other option, so every dollar invested means a dollar less of profit. One could, in many aspects should, blame negligent behaviour of the company, union collusion, and incompetent state control, however, as horrible as it sounds, TBA is acting  according to capitalist principles. It maximizes its profits…

In my opinion, public transport is structurally organized in Buenos Aires to produce bad and even dangerous services. For example, buses are in the same situation, every line is “owned” by a different private company… Therefore, the most logical solution would be to go back to state own public transport. Nonetheless, some things can be done within the actual flawed system. The situation is quite complex, since it reflects many common “argentinian” problems. For example, the head of TBA is very close to Kirchner’s government and has allegedly participated actively in fund raising activities for the actual President. Some claim that explains why state control was so deficient. One can also point out the difficult re-professionalization of state agencies, after decade of destruction. The other issue is “terciarización” or outsourcing. The company hires third parties to perform activities such as maintenance, pays union leaders to look the other way, and get cheaper workers. This issue has engendered a few violent confrontations between different unions. These corruption problems could probably be addressed with some political will.

Last week accident goes way beyond a punctual accident – even if it represents a terrible tragedy – it speaks to us about the legacy of the 90s neoliberal reforms. It is important to put in context this tragedy in a time when many countries are facing similar situations to what Argentina has experienced 20 years ago. Greece and Spain might wake up in a decade or so with the kind of headaches Argentina is having today…

–

Masthead photo courtesy of born1945

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.

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)

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

First and most striking, politics have made a huge shift on the right. I am not only referring to Harper’s conservative, 19^th 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.

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…

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.

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.