Tomorrow marks 15 years since the Oct. 30, 1995 referendum, which saw the federalist option narrowly defeat the choice of Quebec sovereignty.
Some sovereignists look back at the 1995 referendum and blame the defeat either on federalist overspending and/ or the overwhelming federalist vote from the province's minority ethnic groups.
Many Quebecers will recall premier Jacques Parizeau angrily stating on referendum night that " it's true that we have been defeated, but basically by what? By money and ethnic votes, essentially." He added that: "in the next round, instead of being 60 or 61 per cent (of francophones) to vote YES, 'we' will be 63 or 64 per cent and it will suffice."
While his declaration was widely denounced by both federalists and sovereignists, there remain nonetheless too many Quebecers who still view Parizeau as an uncompromising leader who merely served up some statistical fact. Of course, he might have blamed Quebec seniors for their heavy federalist vote or referred to the strong federalist vote in Gatineau or, for that matter, the near unanimity among Quebec anglophones. Yet instead he chose to stigmatize the province's ethnic minorities for exercising their democratic right.
Those contending that Parizeau's analysis of the 1995 ethnic electorate was just good math need to be reminded that on an earlier occasion, he calculated the votes differently. A few months after the failure of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, Parizeau insisted that "Quebec sovereignty could easily be achieved without the support of the anglophone and immigrant communities." Noting that in the 1992 referendum 67 per cent of francophones rejected the constitutional offers but that only eight per cent of anglophones and allophones voted with them, Parizeau concluded that: "we can get a majority to agree to the national cause we are promoting, even if nearly no anglophones or allophones are behind it." He clearly chose to apply a different logic in 1995.
If there remained any confusion about what Parizeau meant by the "ethnic vote" in his 1995 remarks, he offered some insight in a speech two years later in Edmonton. Asked to elaborate on what he was thinking on the night of the referendum, the former premier quipped that: "the Jewish Congress of Canada (Quebec section), the Greek Congress of Canada, and the Italian Congress make a very good fight, and when I said to them: 'you've been very efficient' they say, 'You can't say that'."
Not all sovereignists agree with Parizeau about the role of Quebec ethnic groups in the referendum. Some have insisted that the participation of the representative organizations of the communities in the 1995 referendum transformed it into an ethnic debate. UQAM sociology professor Micheline Labelle went so far as to describe the ethnic community organizations' participation as anti-democratic since they presumably told members of their respective communities how to vote. [In fact, they did no such thing. They legitimately conveyed the views of the vast majority of their constituents to the broader population. ->30606]
Curiously no one objects to English-language organizations expressing their views in the referendum. Nor did anyone object to women's groups, labour, and artists' unions purportedly speaking in favour of sovereignty on behalf of Quebec workers, women, and artists.
Underlying Parizeau's 1995 remarks is the question of whether Quebec sovereignty is an expression of ethnic or civic nationalism. In fact, Quebec nationalism includes both ethnic and civic dimensions. At the very core of Quebec nationalism is the desire to preserve the French language and culture, which entails some ethnic dimension. There is no reason to fear acknowledging that reality. I profoundly disagree that preserving the French language and culture requires that Quebec separate from Canada, but I respect the view of those who feel otherwise. However, the idea that sovereignty is about "us" versus "them" in the terms Parizeau put forth represents a form of ethnic nationalism that risks inciting inter-group conflict.
It's true that some members of Quebec's Jewish, Greek, and Italian communities feel that taking a stand on national unity compromises their capacity to interact with the Parti Quebecois. But withdrawing from the debate is more likely to disempower the communities on an issue of fundamental importance to Quebecers (not to mention the rest of the Canadian population). In the unfortunate event of another referendum, it is relatively safe to assume that ethnic community leaders will intervene in much the same way they did in 1995.
Jack Jedwab is executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies. In 1995 he was executive director of the Quebec section of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Gone+words+unforgotten/3744387/story.html#ixzz13kzzT24z