A guide to Quebec elections for people from elsewhere
by Alan Cohen
***Note: I’m asking my Quebec friends to summarize their political views in the comments section, so others can get a sense. Check back later if you click on this before they’ve had a chance to post!***
Quebec is holding provincial elections next Tuesday, and politics here are quite interesting, so I thought I’d post a little summary for people who may not be from here. While the population here (~8 million) is smaller than that of my home state of Michigan (~10 million), there is a distinct sense of identity, and many people here consider Quebec to be essentially a separate country. In addition, Quebec is almost 1/4 of the Canadian population, so this feels more like a national than a provincial election. Combined with the unique local dynamics, politics are much more interesting here than they ever were in Michigan.
The primary interesting factor here is that, while people in most places fall along a left-right political spectrum, people here also fall along a sovereignist-federalist political spectrum. (Sovereignists think Quebec should be (or is) an independent country, federalists view it as part of Canada.) This complicates things enormously because, instead of two parties to represent the poles, there should be four. But a four-party system is unstable in most forms of democracy, so things get complicated…
In most places, like Canada as a whole and the US, there are multiple political “axes” that can be theoretically independent – social liberalism versus traditionalism, law and order versus civil liberties, and social welfare versus free market. There’s no reason in theory that someone couldn’t be socially conservative, favor lots of welfare programs, and be moderate on civil liberties. In practice, however, these potentially different axes tend to line up with each other: people who favor law and order also usually favor social conservatism and free market policies, for example. Thus, using the “Vote Compass” tool available in Canada, we see that even when we use two different axes, all the main parties fall along one line:
With the exception of libertarians, most voters are served relatively well by this right-left axis: there’s almost no one in the upper right or lower left corners of this graph, for example. But the same is not true for the sovereignists in Quebec. There are right-wing sovereignists and left-wing sovereignists, right-wing federalists and left-wing federalists. The Vote Compass tool for Quebec shows the parties a bit more spread out:
(In this figure, the horizontal axis represents all of the normal right-left axes together, with right at the right and left at the left. The vertical axis is “identity,” with the top being for sovereignty and the bottom for federalism.) Most of the parties still fall along a northwest-southeast axis, but the correlation is much less tight. And the parties don’t really represent the people: There are actually a fair number of voters in the upper right and lower left quadrants, even if there are not parties that represent them.
The problem is that in most winner-take-all voting systems, such as exists in Quebec, Canada, and the US, multi-party voting systems are not stable. For an excellent and amusing video explaining why, see here. And then see what to do about it here. So in effect, there are two main parties in Quebec, the Liberals and the Parti Quebeçois or PQ. The Liberals are center-right and strongly federalist, the PQ is left and sovereignist.
(Quebec is MUCH more left-leaning than the US – the Liberals are about at the same place on the right-left spectrum as the Democrats in the US. “Right-wing” in Quebec means thinking that there might be some limits to social welfare, and that it’s possible to imagine a tax burden high enough to stifle economic growth, without specifying what those limits might be. Similar to how, in the US, “left-wing” means thinking that there might be some role for government in public life, that it’s possible to imagine a reasonable law restricting the use of firearms, and that a policy of immediate execution for illegal immigrants might be slightly unreasonable.)
The Liberals have been in power since 2003, and are widely considered corrupt, with ties to the mafia in relation to public construction contracts, among other things. The PQ as well, though not seen as being as corrupt as the Liberals, do not have a great reputation for honesty and competence. So even the voters who find themselves aligned relatively well with these two parties along the political axes don’t really like them very much.
The combination of dislike for the main parties and poor representation of the political “axis space” represented in the figures above means that the current two-party system is highly unstable. People are forced to vote strategically, but don’t like the two main options. What this means is that an upstart party will fare poorly in the polls at first, but as soon as it starts to gain a bit, everyone who has been waiting to jump ship from the traditional parties will start, and as the polls improve, more and more people will think this feasible, with a positive feedback effect that can quickly change the dynamics of the election.
In fact, this is what happened a year ago in Canada, with the formerly marginal left-wing NDP surging and replacing the center-left Liberals and the sovereignist Bloc Quebecois in many areas to become the official opposition. It is also what appears to be happening now in Quebec. The upstart CAQ (Coalition Avenir Quebec, or Coalition for the future of Quebec) has taken a relatively neutral position on sovereignty, is pro-business and growth, and anti-corruption. It is siphoning off votes from the Liberals (anyone federalist or toward the right of the spectrum that was fed up with the corruption) and to a lesser extent from the PQ (anyone not adamantly sovereignist). The CAQ is still in third place in the poll averages and projections, but has overtaken the Liberals in some polls and has clear momentum. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them win a major victory in an upset on election day.
At the same time, PQ is being challenged from further left by Quebec Solidaire, and from the extreme sovereignists by Option Nationale. While these two new, upstart parties don’t seem to present much immediate threat, Quebec Solidaire at least has been showing increasing popularity, with one of its leaders widely considered to have won the recent debate. My guess is that if people weren’t voting strategically, Quebec Solidaire would be doing as well or better than the PQ, and the PQ better watch out in the next election, even if Quebec Solidaire only rounds up 5-10% of the vote and 1-2 seats this time.
Identity politics
One aspect of Quebec politics that may be hard for outsiders to understand is the role of identity, which is wrapped up with sovereignty questions, but also with immigration policy and language policy. Most people here, including federalists and anglophones (and me) believe that Quebec has a culture distinct from the rest of Canada, largely due to the French language and the heritage that goes with it. Most people (again including federalists and anglophones) also believe that a small French-speaking enclave in North America is in danger of being swallowed linguistically and culturally by all of the anglophone culture around it. Sovereignists believe that a separate country is the solution, federalists do not. Most people feel some degree of protection for the French language needs to be legislated, but the details are always controversial.
Currently “Bill 101” protects the French language in many ways: everything from forcing francophones and immigrants to send their kids to French-language schools rather than English language schools, to legislating that French language must appear on all signs outside stores in a larger font than English (even in traditionally English-speaking communities), to imposing quotas for immigrants from French speaking countries. (Quebec has a parallel immigration system, so immigrants here need to be approved by two governments rather than by one, as in the rest of Canada.)
Quebec is one of the least xenophobic places I’ve lived in, but, like everywhere, there are some anti-immigrant and anti-“other” sentiments here, and the language and identity politics is always at risk of getting these things mixed up. Is a proposed law banning public-sector employees from wearing hijabs at work a way to protect Quebec culture and maintain a secular state, or is it a way of saying to certain groups, “We don’t like you and we don’t want you to be part of our society”? It is both, but though maybe only one or the other for many people. So the feeling of being part of a threatened culture exacerbates anti-“other” tendencies, but is counter-balanced by a general openness of spirit and lack of hostility to other groups on the part of most people.
In my opinion, there is reason to the idea that the language and culture here need some degree of protection, but most of the proposed policies are largely symbolic and will not be very effective. It would be good for government leaders to consult neutral, external linguists for ideas on what might actually work – I don’t think legislating font sizes makes any difference at all, other than to create resentment in minority communities and a sense of accomplishment for those who passed the law. But this is all perhaps for another post…
Anyway, next Tuesday we should have some interesting results. I’m really hoping that my Quebec friends will post their reactions below: Am I right in my take on Quebec politics? What did I miss? Who are you voting for and why? Are you sovereignist or federalist, and why? How do you feel about Quebec identity? I’m looking forward to your reactions!
Hi, here is how i see it as a french canadien.
I agree with your interesting views. Although I think party chef popularity will also play a big role in this election.
The PQ chef is having a tough time convincing old or new separatists she is the needed leader to accomplish sovereignty. Actually, she is stuck between the moderate (wait for the winning conditions) and ”strong wing?” (separate as soon as possible) parts of her own party. It reflects on how she is having a hard time managing questions about sovereignty in debates and in media sessions.
The CAQ leader is an ex-strong-wing-sovereignist (PQ minister) who switched sides and abdicated to any short-mid term sovereignty project. His main theme is corruption in old political parties, which works well against the liberals but not as much against PQ, since he has been a witness of what was going on in this party…and never made public outings about corruption during that time.
The liberal chef is probably the most liked one regarding leadership and communication qualities but is having a tough time convincing anyone it is a good thing to have three consecutive terms with the same party in power without being corrupted.
QS chefs (they are two) try to have more deputies elected and clearly state they aren\’t wishing to take the power this time. People will probably rather vote against parties they don’t like instead of for them.
All in all, I think lots of quebecers are voting based on ”the chef they like the most”, rather than on a left-right-nationalist vision as the 3 big parties are not that far from center. This does not reflect my personal vision but I do think it is a big factor…
Thanks Michel! I do think you’re right that personality is important in this election – it is in most. And I agree that the Liberals and the CAQ are not so far apart on the right-left spectrum, though I think the PQ is substantially to their left (though clearly not on the extreme left). But, as you say, this right-left difference may be less important for many voters than personality issues or the media image of their party.
Can’t wait to see what happens Tuesday!
“mb”: “The liberal chef is probably the most liked one regarding leadership and communication qualities but is having a tough time convincing anyone it is a good thing to have three consecutive terms with the same party in power without being corrupted.”…
I am sorry, but I disagree with that: 1) the liberal chief has NO leadership at all, and is weak in communication habilities. He is not corrupted BECAUSE the 3 terms (I would say instead 21/2 terms, since he cheated the last one after only 2 years), the liberal party is corruted by nature, since very long (see Quebec history, in Bourassa governement, for example). But I agree with you when you say “think lots of quebecers are voting based on ‘the chef they like the most’, In fact it is applicable for all people in the world, I think…
Bye!
… “Am I right in my take on Quebec politics?” … Yes! Congratulation Alan! You have a good understanding of the overall situation here – if I tell you, it is true 🙂
I really enjoyed the two amusing videos expaining democracy 🙂 The English is very fast for me, but I did “rewind” when needed.. 🙂
… “What did I miss?” … I can not say that you missed something, because a nation and its politics are so complex. But may I suggest you to not use the term “extreme sovereignists” – it sound not good. Maybe you could say “Strong independentist” instead, or “Real independentist” …? …
By the way, I have a precision to make: the idea of independance is really not against Canada and neither anglophones. I believe the independance of Québec is essential because it is NORMAL for a NATION to have their own governement and politics, instead of letting the others (in Canada) decide for us… Don’t you?
I agree with your idea regarding the language protection : “In my opinion, there is reason to the idea that the language and culture here need some degree of protection, but most of the proposed policies are largely symbolic and will not be very effective…” It is true especially for french at work: nobody have the courage to impose french as the official language, even at the colleges and universities… But as you said it is another post…
… Well… Finally… I think all that would be better expressed in french, but I wish your friends still understand my bad English 🙂
Bye!
Glad to know my take isn’t too far off! It’s true that my use of the term “extreme sovereignist” seems a bit pejorative, which was not the intention, though “Real independentist” also seems biased in the other direction. We often say “far left” and “far right” but this doesn’t work: “far sovereignist”? Anyway, my goal was to be neutral in my presentation…
I hope I didn’t imply that the idea of independence was necessarily anti-Canadian or anti-anglophone. In fact, one of my goals was to portray the complexity of this issue. There are two cultures in one country, and this causes tension. Necessarily, this means that sometimes each culture will be frustrated with the other. Sometimes this frustration will be expressed in ways that are similar to mild xenophobia or racism, but not always. Thus, while favoring independence does not mean being anti-Canadian or anti-anglophone, in some cases the two will inevitably go together.
Yes, I think it is normal for a nation to have their own government and politics, but the question then is what is a nation? I don’t think a nation is defined by linguistic games about what you call a place, I think the definition goes the other way: a nation is the unit that has its own government and politics, with no higher authority restricting it. By this definition, Quebec is not a nation. Whether it should be is a different question, and one on which I am trying to maintain neutrality in these posts, since it is obviously purely subjective.
Thanks for posting, and don’t worry about your English, which is easy to understand! It’s great to have points of view from other cultures here.
[…] CAQ with 19 seats, and Quebec Solidaire with 2 seats. For an explanation of what this means, see my last post. I’m a bit surprised by the strong showing for the Liberals, despite polls that suggested […]