Tuesday, October 21, 2003

THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE

In todays Globe and Mail Jeffery Simpson writes that if the new Conservative Party were to choose Mike Harris as their leader they would have no hope of winning seats in Quebec because of Harris' lack of ability to speak French.

By noon Pual Wells had added his thoughts to this debate over at his blog. Wells argues that language essentially has very little to do with it. Showing a good knowledge of electoral history Wells argues that Quebecers, even today, are unwilling to vote for a prime minister from outside of Quebec, regardless of what his French is like, regardless of what his platform is. He writes:

"So what's it all mean? That francophone Quebec voters still do not feel secure enough in Canada's federal context to support a leader's ideas over his hometown. Note that the reverse is not true: the anglophone rest-of-Canada has often supported a francophone Quebecer (Trudeau, Chretien) over his anglophone non-Quebecois opponent."

After thinking about this through the day and after an e-mail exchange with Wells this morning, in which I disagreed with him mostly because I missed his point, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that Wells seems to be more right. I know that there are many Canadians (I am one of them) who want our prime minister to represent the duality of cultures that our nation is founded upon. There is a sense that the French tradition is a part of our identity even if we do not have a direct connection to that culture. Far fewer Quebecois seem to feel the same way, particularly on the basis of election returns.

How does this compare to the past? Back in the 1840s, when the country was really founded, the upper most level of government was a true partnership. Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafointaine served as joint premiers of Canada West and Canada East. By the time of Confederation Sir John (definitely an anglophone) was PM but in Sir Georges Etienne-Cartier he had an equal partner in everything but title. By the mid-20th century Mackenzie-King (another anglophone) was partnered with Louis St. Laurent, but by this point St. Laurent was less of a partner and more of a senior Quebec lieutenant. With Trudeau and Mulroney (both francophones) serving as prime minister for so long, the need for a partnership seemed to lessen. Quebec voted for Quebecois and English Canada was willing to vote for Francophones they identified with.

With the tradition of a partnership at the senior levels of federal government essentially defunct will Quebecers ever be willing to vote for a prime minister who is not Quebecois? The irony is that the Francophone leadership from Lafontaine, Cartier, Laurier, St. Laurent, Trudeau and even Mulroney has done so much to shape the idea of Canada and yet, as Wells says, Quebecers still seem insecure within this federation that they have defined in so many ways.

Posted by Matthew @ 10:16 p.m.