Books, Volume 13 #4

Robert A. Young, The Secession of Quebec and the Future of Canada. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995. 376 pp. $44.95.

Much has been written on the secession of Quebec, on both sides and in both languages, and some of it is of high intellectual quality. But an important aspect seems to have been neglected, even by Quebec's exhaustive Bélanger-Campeau Commission: the process of secession itself.

A well-known political science scholar at the University of Western Ontario has tried to fill the gap. The result is an important essay in cold-minded futurology, a book that is remarkably free of apocalyptic scenarios. It also has the considerable advantage of considering the evolution of both Quebec and Canada (the Rest of Canada or ROC in the author's careful terminology).

Professor Young takes it for granted that secession will occur and that both countries will survive and reconstitute themselves, possibly on a better basis than the present one. With one condition: the secession process has to be flawless. The main purpose of this study is to describe the critical path to flawless and nonviolent separation.

The most important point of comparison is Czechoslovakia. In Professor Young's view, the division of Czechoslovakia represents a near-perfect secession process according to the theoretical pattern he outlines. An age-old dream of freedom crystallizes under the influence of charismatic leaders--in this case, the Czech Vaclav Klaus and the Slovak Vladimir Meciar. In Czechoslovakia, President Havel acknowledged this development and the process was rapid and free of violence.

While Professor Young sees this sort of process as a possibility in Canada, he regards it as more difficult in a multiprovince country. There are other difficulties in Canada as well. First of all, while in Czechoslovakia both parties evolved during the negotiation process, ROC has consistently rejected Quebec's proposals. Second, Quebecers are divided, which was hardly the case on either side in Czechoslovakia. Third, in Canada one party, Quebec, considers itself a nation, while ROC sees itself as a country that would be mutilated by secession. Finally, Czechs and Slovaks had only a short common history (1920-93), while our own situation has lasted for more than two centuries. Nevertheless, many useful observations can be drawn from this parallel.

My personal Deep Throat told me recently that Ottawa will initiate negotiations when and only when the polls show the separatist option at 48 per cent.

Professor Young's pattern of successful and peaceful secession involves the following stages: 1) preparation through protracted constitutional and political disputes; 2) declaration of intention to separate by the secessor state; 3) acceptance of this intention by the predecessor state; 4) secession; 5) strengthening of the government on both sides; 6) negotiations handled by few participants; 6) separation accomplished quickly; 7) acceptance of a significant role for foreign powers; 8) a settlement with a short list of items; 9) no other constitutional changes in either state.

The author then considers the dynamics of Quebec secession and comes to a clearly federalist but positive conclusion. If the rules of peaceful and positive secession are respected, if separation is democratically requested, let it be. And if more tension occurs, a slightly more arduous road is outlined: secession with polarization. I have studied this kind of situation, and I believe the weakness of Professor Young's formulation is his lack of interest in history, as compared to his concern with economic consequences. Economics is not the main factor in the proposal to secede or even in keeping the federal status quo.

With the official Canadian position on the constitution having ceased to evolve years ago, at the time of Meech Lake, while Quebec separatism has constantly experimented with new proposals, a typical situation of increasing tension has been created: 1) a social analysis has been carried out and refined for many years; 2) an objective has been selected; 3) many preliminary negotiations have been tried but have failed; 4) public opinion has been explored. We are currently at position 5, the ultimatum phase, a critical one, the one where position 6 becomes essential: organized nonviolent direct action. Nonviolence is not spontaneous. It requires planning, education and experts. We have none of these. And the book under review could usefully have recommended a path towards nonviolent action. My personal Deep Throat told me recently that Ottawa will initiate negotiations when and only when the polls show the separatist option at 48 per cent. If this is true, the risk is high that the whole process will not follow Professor Young's optimistic lines.

An inevitable result of Ottawa's rejection of all forms of negotiation is a complete absence of public reflection on nonviolence--especially since in most cases violence starts on the status quo side when that side does not evolve. Moreover, Prime Minister Chrétien should consider that a 51 per cent victory for the status quo is as dangerous as an equivalent victory for separation. It would also be useful for ROC to question its reliance on Quebec's "natural" pacifism: Professor Young's book helps clarify where violence is possible in Canada.

The last section, long-term outcomes, is again optimistic. What the author considers Quebec's specific characteristics (cultural homogeneity, social solidarity, rapidity of communications, government support for business) "might allow Quebec to attain more rapid economic growth as a sovereign state than as part of the Canadian federation." As for ROC, it "would emerge as a stable country, rather like what it is now but with a higher degree of centralization, at least temporarily."

The book has been translated into French and published by Laval University Press. It will be very useful to both sides.