Those who do not already know may be surprised that the original strategy of the Parti Quebecois was simply to gain a majority of seats in the election and declare independence by a vote in the National Assembly. At that time, an electoral victory was a mandate to initiate the process leading to sovereignty.
Unfortunately, in 1974 Congress, delegates will draw a line on the electoral process and adhere to the management proposal, linking to a sovereignty referendum that the PQ would hold after his accession to power.
This is not to judge advocates who supported the difficult path advocated by the National Executive whose charismatic René Lévesque. Too easy when we have the advantage of reviewing a decision in hindsight and that one knows the consequences. But a balance is needed permanently. In 2008, Quebec has still not reached the rank of countries and sovereignists find themselves divided between green, supportive, PQ and ADQ. Certain lack of interest to empty and incoherent speech of heads of training rather stay home on election day.
This does not mean that the sovereignty movement finds himself doomed to extinction. Instead, surveys show that sovereignty remains a credible alternative entrenched and militant organizations is increasing. But politically, the separatists, and divided, find themselves completely neutralized.
To better redefine the future, independence must absolutely review the course and adapt their methods.
Theoretically, of course, a referendum seems more democratic. In a more realistic, however, this choice produces a perverse effect. He was instrumental in creating two enduring myths.
First, it sends the message relayed by a well class media complicity, that democratic legitimacy can not be obtained before project implementation. So, to legitimize the sovereignty, the PQ must obtain the approval of a majority of the population before realizing it. Castrating a logic that puts politicians in the wake of the media and polls and condemns them to no longer exercise any leadership.
Or just
, leadership, here's another way to collect a substantial popular support. The error that keeps alive the myth that no democracy without a referendum, remains from the beginning the idea completely ridiculous that a party that takes power with the most seats but not the majority of votes will never approval of the people to his project if he dares to put in motion anyway. A myth that does not hold water. Instead, the actions of a determined team can cause this support in the population, and legitimize the project in this way. This support can come forward and be measured In many ways, rallies support, satisfaction evident in the polls, a growth of militancy that would rank behind leadership finally assumed a higher profile sovereignists, support the economy and development by Quebec helped their national government, and even ... a referendum. The referendum does not necessarily precede the gestures preparing sovereignty. It can be used as validation of the approach before a declaration of independence, the final step of the process. But even without further approval before the election sovereignty, if it receives the support of people once it is made, it did not then won its legitimacy? The "democratic legitimacy" can be obtained at any time, the important thing is to get it, so that the country is sustainable.
Moreover, the current situation calls for pragmatism. The referendum, in theory, may seem democratic, but it's still the philosophy paper. On the ground of reality, the referendum is an area of struggle between two factions who seek to earn points to control the perceptions of target groups through messages advertising. Sovereignty is then limited to a marketing campaign rather than concrete political choices on the start of construction of the Quebec country. In this game, money determines the winner.
The second myth, like the first, consists in the belief that one can not achieve independence without a referendum, a vote of deputies to the National Assembly is not enough.
Yet a referendum is only consultative tool of government. No country declared its independence referendum. Members vote and declare independence. Here too. If the PQ managed to win his referendum, Quebec does not declare its independence. Members should meet at the National Assembly passed a declaration of independence. The final word belongs to the deputies, who 
theoretically can still vote against and undo the results of the referendum. They have the authority to vote against or for, regardless of the referendum result. In France, MPs have just voted for accession to the new European constitution, despite a majority vote against in the referendum. He is the advisory referendum. Remember that in 1982, no referendum was required to impose a constitution that places from the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, appointed by the Prime Sinister, above our laws in Quebec.
Contrary to what some leaders have suggested, in response to the founding of the separatist Rene Levesque could, and should stay the course of the electoral process. They dared to assert wrongly on the air that Levesque could not achieve independence without a referendum. In politics everything is possible. He had to force the game rather than playing alone for democracy. Pierre Elliot Trudeau he cared about democracy to crush him before Quebec?
Mathieu
