Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘jean charest’

The other day, a conversation thread on Facebook about the online petition demanding Jean Charest’s resignation turned into a friendly debate/discussion about Quebec politics. The comments posted by a number of people were interesting and varied, and at one point, the discussion became about the accountability of politicians to the people they serve, and the nature of democracy, kicked off by the following comment by Phil:

My Quebec resembles the Swiss or Swedish kind of socialism way with shelter and food as a basic human rights, one where large decisions are made in a perpetual referendum where everyone vote and gets a say in where tax money goes. Out with representatives and in with True democracy.

Alexandre expanded on the thought in a follow-up comment:

The democracy you describe is strangely similar to the one I have in mind, one where each issue debated at the political level needs to be voted on by mini-referendums (by computer votes, secured, etc.). Ultimately, we could downsize the government significantly and use that kind of system to steer all the debates. Do you want an investigation on the construction industry: Yes, No… Political parties would then have 1 month on big issue and 2 weeks on smaller issues to inform, convince and steer the population to vote and then the vote would be held and the PEOPLE would chose the outcome, totally oblivious to any party in power at the moment, with no veto, no muzzling, just the people choosing their way. That would be true democracy.

I’ve heard these arguments before. They’re the basis for the anti-Charest petition, and, in fact, are at the heart of the political system itself. How much of an obligation do politicians have to vote according to the mood of their constituents? How far can – or should – they go in using opinion polls as a basis to govern? And at what point do they no longer represent the people who put them in office, by ignoring them too much?

We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative democracy. That means, we vote every once in a while for people to represent us and make the decisions of governing on our behalf. If we don’t like their decisions, we can vote them out of office. But we don’t put every decision to a direct vote, and I don’t think we realistically could, or even should.

A pure democracy would be impractical. It would get bogged down with the logistics of endless votes. It would cause a self-selection bias with low turnout and only the fringe minority casting ballots. It would force people to make decisions on issues that they know little or nothing about, because – unlike politicians – they have day jobs and can’t possibly keep up with every issue that elected officials and their paid staff spend time on.

And, more importantly, a pure democracy would be irresponsible, even if we could implement it practically. Why? Because a majority-rules only system has no built-in protections for minorities. “Do you want an investigation into the construction industry?” seems like a fairly straightforward question - if the population wants it, do it; if not, don’t.  But what about other questions, like, “Should people have to prove that they can speak French before being allowed to vote?” A 2007 CROP poll showed majority support for the idea, which went much further than even the Marois-proposed legislation at the time. How about, “should people be allowed to wear a hijab in the workplace?” Do we take France’s example and strip the rights of religious minorities, just on the majority’s say-so?

And hey, just look at what happened when the Habs started letting people vote on the three stars of the game. Agree or disagree with the old star rankings, at least they were usually reflective of the game itself, and players from the opposing team would earn stars if their performance merited it. Now, with Price getting top star virtually every game, it’s turned into a joke. Good thing it means next to nothing. But now imagine a similar system in place for things that actually matter.

Governing is already largely about a popularity contest. If governments stray too far from what the people want, they pay the price on election day. It’s why they already rely so heavily on polling data and public opinion in order to govern. But to take it a step further and assume that all significant decisions should be taken to a vote would be to make matters all that much worse.

No, I’m not in favour of the nanny-state approach or the “father knows best” idea of governing. I don’t think our politicians know best. I think we need lots of scrutiny and checks and balances to avoid letting them do whatever they want.

But I also think that decisions sometimes need to be made that aren’t just reflective of what the mood of the people is on a particular day. Sometimes, people with a little bit of inside or expert knowledge about a situation are better qualified to make the kinds of day-to-day decisions that it takes to run a government.

And that’s why a pure democracy wouldn’t work, and a representative democracy – to borrow an old, tired, Churchill-ism, is the worst system, except for all the other ones we’ve tried.

There will be no user fees for healthcare in Quebec after all:

Quebecers quickly organized large street demonstrations when the government announced it would charge taxpayers a $200-a-year health premium, then bill patients another $25 for each hospital visit.

[ . . . ]

Quebec’s user fees would have brought an estimated $500 million a year to the provincial treasury.

 The province says it now has to find another way to fill that budget shortfall; health care costs in the province are now more than $20 billion per year and are projected to grow five per cent annually.

Here’s a thought: How about we start by scrapping $20 million annual budget for the Office de la langue française?

The election that wasn’t supposed to matter, everyone said. A snoozer. A mere footnote in the headlines. Most people in Quebec slept through it. But surprisingly, it may end up mattering more than people think. Here are a few reasons why:

• A slim Liberal majority: Much slimmer than anyone, including Charest, was predicting. He’ll have to work hard to win his votes in the National Assembly. Any resignations, by-elections or MP absences could be costly.More importantly, the Liberals had been predicted to win seventy-something seats, not the sixty-six they ended up with. So this is a disappointment for Charest, who, even though he got his majority, has to contend with the fact that he dropped in support over the last few days of the campaign. Most of the people voting Liberal did it holding their noses, anyway; Charest’s not particularly loved, he’s just seen as the best-of-the-worst right now. Majority or not, Charest will have to tread very carefully.

• Marois’s bait-and-switch: I’m referring to the S-word, of course. Sovereignty. A word that was scarcely mentioned by the PQ during the campaign, but was the main theme of Marois’s speech last night.Most of the people who voted PQ yesterday do not necessarily want Quebec to separate. I’d venture to say, most of them don’t want it. They voted PQ because they were disillusioned Adequistes, or because they don’t like Charest, or because they felt that the PQ should be in opposition again, or for a variety of reasons.But Marois is neatly implying that, with 51 seats won, she now has a mandate to work towards sovereignty. And it’s hard to argue with her rhetoric, because, after all, downplaying the S-word during a campaign isn’t the same as disavowing it. Marois’s argument is that the PQ has always had sovereignty as its raison d’être (true) and that people voting for them are doing so knowing that, so they’re justified in their claim that the PQ’s rise in fortune during this election implies a rise in support for sovereignty.Of course, Stephen Harper helped her here a lot, by voluntarily demonizing himself as Monsieur anti-Quebec last week. Harper’s rhetoric not only helped the PQ jump in the polls and capture more seats than predicted; it also gave the PQ an excuse to start beating the sovereigntist drums again.And what better time to do so than during an opposition period? Marois knows she has about three or four years, at least, to hammer sovereignty at every turn. And as long as Harper is in office federally, she’ll have lots of help. No wonder her speech last night sounded more like a victory speech than Charest’s did.

• Back to the future: The 2007 election was hailed as a landmark, “breakthrough” election for Quebec. The ADQ won official opposition status, the PQ was seen as increasingly irrelevant, and we were finally going to get a “normal”, left-right political spectrum where we were talking about actual issues, you know, like education and healthcare and silly things like that. Single-issue voting along strictly federalist-separatist lines? Nah, we were past that. We were evolved.So much for that.The rightist ADQ, which was so fond of fence-sitting on the nationalist question while insisting that Quebecois were past it, has disintegrated in this election. Seems we’re not past it after all. Now, we’re back to a two-party, Liberal-PQ, federalist-sovereigntist divide. Never mind that most of those voting PQ were not voting for separation; it’s the spin that will matter now, and the spin doctors are hard at work convincing everyone that this is exactly what it means. And so, we regress into old patterns, and the issues can be damned.

• Voter apathy: As predicted, the election had the worst turnout in Quebec’s history with only 57% of people in the province bothering to cast a vote. That would mean that there were more people who stayed home (43%) than people who voted for the winning party (42% of those who voted). Again, it’s not too surprising; people are fed up with elections, felt this one was superfluous and unnecessary; were distracted by the goings-on in Ottawa; were just too cold to go to the polling stations. Whatever. But it means that all the political leaders are going to have to do some serious thinking about how to get the public engaged in politics again. Conventional wisdom holds that lower voter turnouts are better for the Liberals, and higher turnouts favour the PQ, which doesn’t say much for Charest’s claim of a strong governing mandate. Apathy is always bad for democracy.

• The rise of Québec Solidaire: Amir Khadir’s election in Mercier means that the far-left QS now has representation in the National Assembly. So we’ve gone from right-middle-left to left-lefter-leftest. Kind of like a university campus political spectrum, really. And so appropriate for Quebec. For those who think it’s just a blip, remember that the ADQ also started with only one MNA – Mario Dumont. Will the Québec Solidaire be the next third party to rise and fall? Stay tuned.

• The federal implications: And this one’s the biggie. Quebec’s election will matter not only to Quebecers, but to all Canadians. With Ottawa in crisis, yesterday’s election may have a big impact on how things shake out over the next few weeks until Parliament resumes in January. The unity question is suddenly an issue again (thanks a whole lot, Stephen) and that’s going to influence how people view the Liberal leadership question, the coalition question, and the potential results of a possible federal election, should the government fall. It’s something that all the federal leaders are thinking about very carefully.

So, the election may end up mattering a great deal. Those of you who were among the 43% of eligible Quebec voters who stayed home yesterday might want to reflect on that.

Stephane Dion has resigned as Federal Liberal leader, succumbing to immense party pressure. Wait a second, I seem to be experiencing déjà vu; didn’t he already resign in October? At any rate, this time he’s really gone, or so he says, and we’re sure to face a snap Liberal leadership vote. Iggy and Rae are the two chief contenders right now. If Rae gets elected Liberal leader, I’m going to have to find a new federal party to support.

Meanwhile, Jean Charest’s Liberals were re-elected with what CTV just officially projected will be a majority government. On the one hand, between the cold weather and general voter apathy, I have a feeling the turnout numbers will be record lows. On the other hand, the majority means no more provincial elections for a few years, which is the best news I’ve heard in a while.

On the Quebec campaign trail, news emerges today that Pauline Marois resorted to desperation tactics, taking the spin game a step too far:

The Parti Québécois instructed supporters to email media blogs throughout Quebec saying they thought PQ leader Pauline Marois won the debate.

According to a story in the Journal de Montréal, Marois’s press aide Brann Blanchette-Emond instructed supporters to stress “the power of Madame Marois’s arguments and her ardour.”

“You have to take the approach that you were undecided and now are going to vote for the PQ.”

Ouch! I guess nobody is confident in Marois’s abilities, least of all Marois, who also grabbed headlines today for admitting that the forced municipal mergers were a disaster. Charest hardly has to do anything, with the way Marois keeps shooting herself in the foot.

Meanwhile in Ottawa, the brand-new “strengthened” minority Conservative government, which cost taxpayers a $300 million election, is on the verge of collapse after only a few weeks. Since nobody wants a third election, the talk is turning to coalition government, which should last about, oh, five minutes.

Couldn’t we just declare a moratorium on all elections for a while?

Looks like we’re going back to the polls yet again… This time, for a provincial election on December 8th.

Charest seems to think that the time is ripe, given his lead in the polls, the ADQ official opposition being in shambles, the unstable minority government, and the negative economic outlook that would make this a lot tougher on him in a year or two. I would almost be inclined to agree with him if I weren’t so electioned-out.

If you’re really quiet, you can almost hear the collective groans being emitted all the way from Gatineau to Gaspésie. I predict record-low turnouts, whatever happens.

This might be one of the shortest minority governments on record, if Charest’s budget gets defeated on June 1st, as expected given the PQ and the ADQs opposition to it. We could have new elections as early as July.

The irony is that, for the most part, I actually think the budget presented by the Liberals was good. I don’t often say that about budgets. But Charest’s team had the right priorities here: Lowering taxes to reduce our overly outrageous tax burden, increasing funding for healthcare and education, ending the crippling handcuffs on universities by lifting the tuition freeze gradually while supplementing with additional loans and bursaries, and additional investment in city infrastructure, while cutting spending in a whole host of other areas.

Sure, the budget’s not without its problems. But the ADQ and the PQ have both put themselves in the position now of toppling a government to force an election because they oppose tax cuts. Where else in the world could political parties believe that this would earn them votes in a subsequent election?

Unfortunately, in Quebec’s political climate, this has a fair shot of working. Which is, in a nutshell, exactly what’s wrong with our society. People want more spending and they will pay more taxes for it, and when they complain about the taxes, the politicians can just point to Ottawa and blame the “evil Federal government” for creating the “fiscal imbalance” (you know, the one that Jean Charest took credit for solving right before the last election).

If the ADQ and the PQ both make good on their threats to bring down this government by voting against the budget, then Charest’s political career will be over. Marois’s election coronation as PQ leader will be fast-tracked, and Dumont will humbly refuse to try to form an opposition government, even though he might be asked to do so, because it would be bad form. And one of the two will probably get elected.

Shame. Just when I was starting to think that this Liberal/ADQ minority government was actually working surprisingly well.

So by now everyone pretty much knows that today’s provincial election has resulted in a minority Liberal government.

Final results: 48 seats for the Liberals, 41 for the ADQ, and 36 for the PQ.

There’s no doubt that Mario Dumont’s ADQ is the big winner tonight, going from 5 seats to a whopping 41, and capturing the balance of power. Charest’s Liberals were reduced to minority status, and Charest himself only narrowly won his own seat. As for Boisclair’s PQ, after widely being expected to achieve sweeping victory only a few months ago, they were just plain embarrassed. Boisclair’s days in provincial politics are surely numbered – most likely in the single-digits.

Then again, in the popular vote, the Liberals lost 13 percentage points, compared to the PQ who only lost 5. Arguably, it’s the Liberals who lost out in terms of mandate – if not in terms of seats. A lot of people in “safe” Liberal ridings were casting protest votes this time around, which may have accounted for this seeming discrepancy.

And my own riding? As expected, Liberal incumbent Lawrence Bergman sailed to victory with over 84% of the vote, but second place went not to one of the other major parties but to the Greens, with just over 6.5%. Not much of a contest here, but I voted anyway, ever the dutiful citizen. I still maintain that if you don’t vote, you can’t bitch about it later.

What will this mean for Quebec? In the immediate term, it means no referendum, anyway. It also means that the Liberals have lost their mandate to govern. The ADQ is going to get a lot more of a say in how things are run in the province. And we’re probably looking at another election in about 18 months. And the PQ may be down right now, but don’t count them out; under new leadership, they could still come back to threaten for victory the next time around. Let’s just hope that support for sovereignty continues to ebb in the interim, because I’d kinda like my country to stay together for a while.

All in all, though, a minority government might not be the worst thing in the world. It’s not as though the Liberals were doing a whole lot with their hands untied, before.

After Monday, if the polls hold, we could have a newly-minted minority government here in Quebec, alongside the existing federal minority government.

As far as I’m concerned, minority governments are a good thing. The less a government is able to do while in power, the better.

And, memo to Jean Charest: I’m voting for you, but I’m still waiting for my tax cut.

Bribery money for Quebec, tokens to the environmentalists, money for families and small business incentives were some of the highlights of today’s spend-happy, tax-cuts-devoid federal budget, announced by Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

The Bloc Quebecois banded together with the Tories to avoid a government collapse. But most people don’t believe this minority government will last more than a few months longer. A friend of mine was just hired by Elections Canada, so if you’re the betting type, you might want to put your money on spring or summer.

All that the Tories have managed to do with this budget is to legitimatize the Quebecois claim of a “fiscal imbalance” and to make an attempt at social engineering. The Tories seem to have forgotten their promises to balance the budget, cut taxes and grow the economy, preferring to tell people that they should drive greener cars, get married, have more babies, and own businesses that don’t grow too big. From a financial management perspective, based on initial impressions, I’d give it a D.

The key question is, will the extra $2.3 billion be enough to elect Jean Charest next week?