Why a real sovereigntist should prefer an ongoing role within confederation

Here's a start to a sensitive topic ... surely needs to be developed a little more thoroughly.
___________________

There has been a body of support for an independent Quebec at least since the times of René-Lévesque.

Through history there have been a significant number of independence movements, many of which were to varying extents the result of economic inequalities, oppression of cultural, ethnic or religious identities, and at times following an ideological cleavage between significant portions of a society. In the context of a democratic society with effective constitutional and legal means of recourse, these continuous tensions have the capacity to stimulate a positive dialogue leading to greater mutual understanding and improved representation of interests within a political community.

In the case of actual separations between countries, the sheer weight of unaddressed issues may have festered to the point where violence was sparked. This has resulted in newly independent states, civil wars leading to a new political paradigm dictated largely by the winners, increased oppression of the separatist groups, or reconciliation which includes a sufficient degree of sovereignty to satisfy the group that initially felt offended.

As far as I am aware, one could argue that all of these have characterized the relationship between Quebec and the Rest of Canada (ROC) at one time or another since 1867. Fortunately, the Canadian constitution, as negotiated by the largely British and French immigrants who founded our country, is very well suited towards a distribution of powers that allows Quebec more or less complete freedom to pursue its independent cultural development. The Canadian constitution dictates that the each member of the federation has jurisdiction over culture, education and their natural resources, to start a long list. There is an important historical difference to note though. Most independence movements concern regions that were conquered, were otherwise absorbed into an empire, or are postcolonial countries where some groups had no say in the design of the new state. Quebec, however, entered Canada on its own accord in 1867, and thus had the opportunity to negotiate its cultural autonomy.

Despite historical problems, such as the exclusive use of English in many government departments in Quebec, or declining manufacturing output in sectors that were important to Quebec in the earlier part of the 20th century, there is one underlying sentiment that seems to drive sovereigntists in Quebec. In particular, many Quebecois are concerned that, as an island in an Anglophone sea (North America), their culture and language are under siege. The evidence for this comes from anglicisms in the language.
_______________________

My argument that a real sovereigntist should seek to ensure the growth of an ongoing role within confederation is thus centered on the question "Is the durability of the French language in Quebec and the ongoing growth and development of Quebecois culture, as something that should be celebrated and valued, best ensured as a member of confederation or as an independent state?" I don't think that comes anywhere near the complexity of the questions in the actual referendums.

To start off with, these are very difficult questions to answer, since it’s not exactly clear what the sovereigntists want these days. It’s not even clear that most supporters of the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois want separation. This is not a critical statement. In my mind the sheer diversity of opinions that gather under the banner of the nominally separatist parties is a good sign. In particular, it illustrates that blind faith in some indoctrinated nationalism is not a significant mobilizing factor for these parties. That bodes well for a future where Quebecois nationalism is a positive, celebratory expression.

While I think nationalism has great potential to bring diverse communities within a nation together, I would say that I tend, in a tiny sort of way, towards anti-nationalism at any kind of level. That has nothing to do with Quebec. It has to do with an historical view, having seen national pride all too often subverted to xenophobia and excessive ethnocentrism. The broad variety of opinions under the Bloc and PQ is a positive indication that non Quebecois residents of Quebec probably have little to fear in terms of negative nationalism. I will come back to this issue of positive nationalism vs. negative nationalism towards the end.
________________

Historians could go on ad infinitum about numerous details relating to Quebec, or other examples of movements that sought greater sovereignty for their people or region. My argument that Quebec’s sovereignty is best pursued as a member of the Canadian confederation is relatively straightforward. The first thing I do is to take up on the number one concern, which is the protection of Quebecois culture and the French language in Quebec. As such, I am actually arguing that Quebec’s cultural and linguistic sovereignty are more effectively protected and developed in the present setup than in the case of complete independence. I then consider the possible directions that Quebecois nationalism could take following independence.

Quebecois culture gets special treatment in Canada. One of the most loved and most hated prime ministers from the 1970s, Pierre Trudeau, made sure that French-speaking students across the country could have access to an education in French. This was combined with an enormous effort to offer French language studies for English-speaking students. This went along with increasing requirement for bilingualism for many public service positions, meaning that it is of strategic interest for many individuals to learn French.

I follow this up with some simple questions – would the government of Canada continue with the significant expenditures that are involved with such policies if Quebec were independent? What if placating demands for cultural sovereignty in Quebec no longer played a role in forming government in Ottawa? Would federal services continue to be offered in both French and English? Answers these questions again for an EU style arrangement.

So, the counterargument could easily be that Quebec would have greater capacity to protect its language and culture if it had complete freedom to do so. To which I might respond by asking – name one way that the present setup impedes Quebec from doing that? While Quebec's sign laws break the Canadian constitution as well international covenants on civil and political rights, the Canadian government has not directly interfered. I decline to presently offer my opinion on these laws, but it is a sure sign that membership in the Canadian federation is not going to impede Quebec's ability to look out for the durability of its culture and language.

I should be upfront that my strategy is to redefine sovereignty, such that it is an issue of maintaining cultural integrity more so than outright political independence. In this light, it is easier to see that the federal government has done quite a bit to promote the independence of the dominant language in Quebec as well as leaving plenty of space for Quebec and its people to independently maintain their cultural identity. It similarly allows an investigation of the prospects for cultural autonomy in an independent Quebec.

An independent Quebec would initially be in the same position to promote ongoing growth of its language and culture as it is as a member of the Canadian federation. I do understand that active representation on the global stage is an issue of importance for Quebec. This is an interesting area of dialogue that calls for creative endeavors in policy entrepreneurship. On the downside, let me mention that an independent Quebec would certainly face greater scrutiny for its borderline discriminatory policies as a fully independent country than as a part of Canada. An optimistic view is that independence would lead to a growth in positive nationalism which engaged in genuine celebration of a vibrant culture that has so much to offer to the global melange that is humanity.

It is important to distinguish between positive nationalism and negative nationalism. Positive nationalism is easiest to see during festivals, in the arts, or in the hospitality and welcoming nature of a nation. In general, this is a pride in one’s national identity and the drive to express it in a celebratory and passionate manner. This may be accompanied by growth in civic participation. Negative nationalism is typically characterized by a multiplication of laws that limit the expression of other cultures, increasing hostility to people from other nationalities and a belief in the ultimate superiority of one’s own culture. In general, this can be expressed as ethno-centrism and xenophobia.

I don't know which way an independent Quebec would go, but with the likely decline in economic support for the ongoing durability and development of Quebecois culture, it could become difficult to maintain the positive form of nationalism. History is too full of examples where economic challenges have been answered with increasingly negative expressions of national pride.

Meanwhile, if the feds were to rethink the significant costs in promoting the French language in English Canada, it would become increasingly difficult for Quebec to do business in its own language. Yes, there is le Francophonie, but it is generally easiest (i.e. most profitable) to do business with one’s neighbours. In this case, Quebec could truly become a very isolated island in the Anglophone sea.

I see two likely directions from there. The first is increasing pressures to pursue education in English for practical economic ends, in order to access economic opportunities vis-à-vis other countries. The other likely direction that I see is that increasing pressures to Anglicize could result in a backlash with the potential to develop into a negative nationalism that few would see as respectful. Neither of these seem to appealing options.

The present status of the dominant language in Quebec and the ongoing development of Quebecois culture is something to be proud of. Quebec has enormous freedom to support and develop its culture, in whatever way her people see fit, largely with the blessing of the federal government. Revel in it. Grow it. Quebec's cultural sovereignty is well protected in Canada, and is quite likely best served by ongoing ties between Quebec and the Rest of Canada.

Many English-speaking Canadians don't understand the relevance of language in culture because they've often lived in a monolingual environment. Many others live in cities with such thriving multiculturalism that it's hard to understand the challenges that Quebec's cultural sovereignty face.

There are far too many Canadians who see the sovereignty movement as a tool to extract concessions from English Canada. It's up to the people of Quebec to prove them wrong. Invite them to travel and experience Quebec and show them how much it has to be proud of. Be the drivers behind a genuine dialogue that explains the real importance of Quebec's freedom to independently grow as a cultural identity. Promote this identity as one that even more people outside Quebec will want to celebrate. Inform them. Educate them. Much of English Canada doesn't really believe that Quebec's culture is truly different. For me, from the perspective of someone who’s spent a good deal of time outside the West, I have to say that we have a lot more in common that you might think. Nevertheless, it is clearly important that English Canada is given the opportunity to understand just why the Quebecois love their language and culture so much.