See the story here by Andrew Potter, he tells it better than I could.
Since that post I've never really understood the fetish for this whole 4 year thing, fixed election date thing. I don't think it's a systemic problem, but a problem with the politicians.
I also think the point about having elections on serious issues a la 1988 is a useful aspect of the current system as Potter describes.
Link
August 23, 2008
June 14, 2008
Quebec as a "nation"
So I had an interesting debate with some colleagues at work, one of whom happens to be from Quebec.
It all started because of comments Gilles Duceppe had made about recognizing the first nations as nations, and talking about the importance of the nation to nation relationship.
One of my colleagues then started talking about how Quebec was much further ahead in terms of its relationship with First Nations, in part because of their similar fears about assimilation.
The misunderstandings about the term nation were pretty clear from the outset however.Especially when it came to the so called nation resolution passed by the house of commons.
The statement was made "It is clear that Quebec is a nation"
This statement is patently false as anybody who actually reads the motion should understand this. If anyone doubts that listen to Lawrence Cannon trying to explain it to journalists. It was one of the most excruciating and inadvertently hilarious sessions I've ever seen an MP subjected to. [you can see one bloggers coverage of the period here ]
First of all, the motion in the house of commons declares that 'the Quebecois' form a nation within a united Canada. Why use the French term rather than its English translation Quebecker?
Therefore to say that the house of commons recognized 'Quebec' as a nation is false, they recognized the Quebecois. This is code language for the fact that they are talking about French speaking Quebeckers only and that the rest of Quebec is excluded.
Nationalism seems to me to be largely about defining us and them. This is why the frustration Parizeau felt in 1995, became crystallized in his famous "we got beat by the moneyed [ie the Jews] and the ethnic vote". They were clearly not part of the nation that he dreamed of.
My point is simply this, it is clear that most nationalist /sovereigntist politicians hide the fact that the nation they talk about, is the French speaking mostly pure laine Quebeckers.
when they talk about being "maîtres chez nous", it is important to understand who is included in the "nous". Does it include the Haitian immigrant who arrived in the past six months? Does it include the child of Korean immigrants who grew up in Atlantic Canada and ended up in Montreal? Does it include a 3rd generation Montrealer who doesn't speak a word of French?
Fundamentally if we want to boil it down to sociological terms, French speaking quebeckers, maybe you could even call them Quebecois are a nation.
However to translate that into either Quebec is a nation, or to the more difficult and dangerous notion that Quebec is a country is going too far.
The world is moving in the opposite direction, most nation-states are increasingly multi-ethnic states like Canada and the United States. The days of the [imaginarily] pure ethnic nation state is fading.
P.S if anyone has a transcript of the Lawrence Cannon debacle I'd appreciate you send me the link
It all started because of comments Gilles Duceppe had made about recognizing the first nations as nations, and talking about the importance of the nation to nation relationship.
One of my colleagues then started talking about how Quebec was much further ahead in terms of its relationship with First Nations, in part because of their similar fears about assimilation.
The misunderstandings about the term nation were pretty clear from the outset however.Especially when it came to the so called nation resolution passed by the house of commons.
The statement was made "It is clear that Quebec is a nation"
This statement is patently false as anybody who actually reads the motion should understand this. If anyone doubts that listen to Lawrence Cannon trying to explain it to journalists. It was one of the most excruciating and inadvertently hilarious sessions I've ever seen an MP subjected to. [you can see one bloggers coverage of the period here ]
First of all, the motion in the house of commons declares that 'the Quebecois' form a nation within a united Canada. Why use the French term rather than its English translation Quebecker?
Therefore to say that the house of commons recognized 'Quebec' as a nation is false, they recognized the Quebecois. This is code language for the fact that they are talking about French speaking Quebeckers only and that the rest of Quebec is excluded.
Nationalism seems to me to be largely about defining us and them. This is why the frustration Parizeau felt in 1995, became crystallized in his famous "we got beat by the moneyed [ie the Jews] and the ethnic vote". They were clearly not part of the nation that he dreamed of.
My point is simply this, it is clear that most nationalist /sovereigntist politicians hide the fact that the nation they talk about, is the French speaking mostly pure laine Quebeckers.
when they talk about being "maîtres chez nous", it is important to understand who is included in the "nous". Does it include the Haitian immigrant who arrived in the past six months? Does it include the child of Korean immigrants who grew up in Atlantic Canada and ended up in Montreal? Does it include a 3rd generation Montrealer who doesn't speak a word of French?
Fundamentally if we want to boil it down to sociological terms, French speaking quebeckers, maybe you could even call them Quebecois are a nation.
However to translate that into either Quebec is a nation, or to the more difficult and dangerous notion that Quebec is a country is going too far.
The world is moving in the opposite direction, most nation-states are increasingly multi-ethnic states like Canada and the United States. The days of the [imaginarily] pure ethnic nation state is fading.
P.S if anyone has a transcript of the Lawrence Cannon debacle I'd appreciate you send me the link
May 22, 2008
Making "globalization" work
After one reads a book like The Collapse of Globalism by John Ralston Saul, one is forced to look at globalization in a different light.
I just finished reading Making Globalization Workby Joseph Stiglitz, and for all its good intentions and its good analysis, particularly on the trade front as well as interesting insight into the reserve system, the author refuses to make that break from using the term globalization.
I find it fascinating that the two books will make the same point, but Saul is willing to point out that the word "globalization" used in the early 1990s at least popularly, is not used in the same way today.
We have in fact moved into a post globalization era. I think that once we recognize this and start using new language, we can begin to truly change things. Language is important and I think the more we hang on to the terminology of globalization which has been captured largely by the economist and right wingers the longer it will take for real change to occur.
I really think the book by Stiglitz really demonstrates the point that Saul makes, that the term has become so broad as to be meaningless. It can mean one thing and it's opposite, the use of the term economic globalization and other such terms merely serve to obscure the fundamental point that when one uses the term globalization it has no meaning at all anymore.
I just finished reading Making Globalization Workby Joseph Stiglitz, and for all its good intentions and its good analysis, particularly on the trade front as well as interesting insight into the reserve system, the author refuses to make that break from using the term globalization.
I find it fascinating that the two books will make the same point, but Saul is willing to point out that the word "globalization" used in the early 1990s at least popularly, is not used in the same way today.
We have in fact moved into a post globalization era. I think that once we recognize this and start using new language, we can begin to truly change things. Language is important and I think the more we hang on to the terminology of globalization which has been captured largely by the economist and right wingers the longer it will take for real change to occur.
I really think the book by Stiglitz really demonstrates the point that Saul makes, that the term has become so broad as to be meaningless. It can mean one thing and it's opposite, the use of the term economic globalization and other such terms merely serve to obscure the fundamental point that when one uses the term globalization it has no meaning at all anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)