What happens now?
Friends sovereignists What to do? Dealing with the reluctance of the Parti Quebecois to bring its option to the forefront sometimes to give the impression he is trying to hide? How to deal with its warmth to adopt a strategic logic to reach his goal, preferring to waste the talents of its activists in the defense of its provincial management? What about a separatist party which undertakes to himself to take action of sovereignty, which rejects any significant action without approval by referendum? sovereignty requires a referendum will say some. Yet the PQ expects no winning conditions or plebiscite to implement its "social democrat". Why not just admit that the PQ is not sovereignty but ... referenda and social-democrat?
What? Pierre Bourgault arose surely the same question in 1968 when the National Rally and Sovereignty-Association Movement join to form the PQ. Bourgault then president of the Rally for National Independence obviously wants the separatists forces unit but Rene Levesque, he rejects any formal alliance with the NIR. Bourgault convene the members of the executive national with the sole item on the agenda: what do we do now?
"[...] I suggest that the executive [national] proposed that the members to dissolve the NIR. Afterwards, we will enter the PQ one by one. We believe in the unity of the independence forces. Now we saw that it was impossible by means of negotiations. So it must be done by force. "
The executive adheres to universally Bourgault and analysis at the annual meeting, it asks its members to join the new political party more moderate and to make their triumph ideas, what they acceptance, thereby realizing the unity of separatists for decades to come ... until now.
Bourgault, who did not want a referendum, said later that the scuttling of his party had been the worst political mistake of his life. However, the scuttling of the NIR, this historic step and founder, has he failed to make essential for PQ its base, its most radical militants, the wicked purzédurs (rinistes that I associate with) those who, while like him, want an election on sovereignty rather than a referendum on an ambiguous question? By the way, I say activists in the broadest sense possible, within or outside the party, each in its midst.
They are essential to PQ, then why does it reflect Does not their aspirations for clear speech and an approach based on independence? Perhaps a part of the answer lies in their unwavering support for the party, given its monopoly over the issue.
Indeed, purists can start their own party without splitting the votes. But the unity of the troops already there. The results of the March 26 clearly shows, after the breakup of the coalition sovereignty, there is now the political collapse of the movement to give Quebecers a state of their own.
In addition, a new player jumps on the ice. The Union of Progressive Forces and Option citizens joined a new party political sovereignty, QS. This young band creates great anxiety it causes for the fracture in our ranks, but it comes at the same time break the monopoly that supplies the dynamics inside the PQ. Two parties rather sovereignists softies now share the stage and they will not come together soon. So that's a huge opportunity for the disaffected to realign nationalist politics through their bargaining power. And frankly, if the left performs it with such skill and without embarrassment, why the separatists would defeat the most determined?
Take yourself what is yours
The dissatisfaction may simply choose the party that best fits their demands. Or they meet to discuss among them-the action plan they wish to adopt and then haggle over their membership in a party. Which shows the candidate most committed to independence and the program the most consistent? Which adopts a tone more firm when the national question? What are the issues for change with the parties?
MES (motion for an election on sovereignty), this association wishes to abandon the PQ approach Morin could (but not necessarily) as a starting point to a kind of "union" whose central objective is to capitalize on the legacy of Bourgault and members of the deceased INR. Thanks to them today, their successors may cause a serious dilemma for the leadership of the PQ, at this juncture, can do without any ally. A serious dilemma in the management of QS can also get support from those activists who lacks to perform a remarkable breakthrough.
The opportunity now presents itself to play parties against one another to raise the stakes and take over the political agenda, we must seize it. The rinistes as goodwill for the PQ are not interested in other parties, but as a group open to change ... Who knows? The speech could suddenly become more nationalistic.
No option should be set aside, even form a new political party. A new way divide? Not necessarily. Think Françoise David. She has formed Citizens Option for the sole purpose of obtaining a merger with the UFP. We could do the same and open negotiations with the PQ, which he refused to RIN in 1968, or negotiate with QS, as David has done with the UFP.
Finally, it is in perfect continuity with the efforts of Bourgault that we can now exercise the necessary pressure on the system to push his point of bursting. Demonstrate that the dissolution of the NIR has served the cause of national independence by giving political weight to his heirs, the power to negotiate which lacked rinistes 1968.
Mathieu
0 comments:
Post a Comment