Elections results all over the world are expressing a tide or, as in the case of Quebec, expressing a 'quasi' even distribution of votes, where the divide becomes clear between the regions and the urbanities. My awareness of this started in 2000 in the controversial USA final results between Bush's (51%) and Gore's (49%). This past 2006 Mexico social tension escalated to an unbearable point in an election defined by a little over of 200,000 votes in a country of 120 million people (In Italy the difference was a dramatical 20,000 votes), still the divide shows a clear difference from the conservative north and the leftist south.
It is not a divide between two opposing views but among three
Furthermore, the story of Mexico and Quebec share a closer resemblance as in Quebec there was a shared vote in clear thirds close to an almost equal 30% of the seats. Meanwhile, while people talk about Mexican struggle between the left and the right the missed to speak about the other 30% of the votes that went to every other party. So, it really was again a similar picture of an equal distribution of votes among three 'ideologies'. Is that the same in USA? Still, the final races remains a close tide between Left and Right, I wonder what will happen two weeks from now in France?
Belonging
The above, added to some other events here in Montreal, has inform program development at the Institute of Management and Community Development and the University of the Streets. Speaking to what Don pointed out we, the X-ers at the Institute, have undertaken the challenge of responding in a spirit of proposition. Hereafter, my first draft for a potential series of conversations to be organized in the Fall'07. The key element for me, and the question I am posing to the group comes from the notion that Ideals 'overrule' (lacking a better word) values.
Your thoughts and feedback are more than welcome.
Gerardo
How can we make of Montreal a place of belonging?
Draft proposal for University of the Streets: Cafe Fall series
Draft proposal for University of the Streets: Cafe Fall series
In a diverse city, within a plural and multicultural country built of immigrants: is there space for everyone to make this their home? As the debate around language, culture, religious beliefs, accommodation and the future of a French Quebec keeps permeating our daily lives confusion and not clarity shades every exchange.
As long as this remains a debate between values, believes and practices there’s not that much space for agreement. However, there’s a difference between human values and human ideals. While values refer to human belief systems, ideals hold the promise of universality. That is, every human holds them dearly without distinction of race, cultural background or religion.
Under these questions, it is important to look into shared ideals as a bridge beyond exclusion and marginalization of worldviews that might be the greatest wealth of Canada. This exchange should be one that happens on the premises of common ground and not of differences. Our common ground on this matter is that of: belonging as an ideal.
What would make us all feel we belong to this community? Who is entitled to dream the future of this community?
4 comments:
That's about the first part of your message. I will comment the second part in another post.
I disagree strongly when you mention the left-right divide in the last Quebec's election. Which leftish party are you talkin about? Certainly not the PQ, they ve become more centrist than anything else. When Boisclair quited as a minister to go back to shool, we went to Harvard to attend that special program for foreign elites outside the US (mostly african) where they're being taugh neo-liberalism). The 2, now 3 major political parties in Quebec are either center or right-center. The PQ major problem is that they became a referemdumist party without a social project instead of a independentist party with a social project. And the effect of this is easily noticeable. When Pequist are disatisfied with the PQ, they just don't show up at the polls. PQ get elected only when th turnout at the polls is over 80% (except for one time with 78%). This time, once more, with a turnout of 70%, a lot of PQ supporters just say home. That probably the only place we could see a right-left divide because most of those are from the progressive wing of the party.
As for the ADQ vote. we have to be careful about the analysis, it is quite an intricate situation. Sure, they got the right and neoliberal vote and what's really worry me about that, is that a very substancial part of their clientele is in the 25-35 years old bracket.
But that's only part of the vote they got. When you look at the results, they manage to get 9-10% of the total vote from the liberals and 3% from the PQ. The Liberal gouvernment was the most unpopular gouvernment in the history of Quebec so I think a lot of the vote was a sanction against the liberal instad of a right vote. The vote they got from the PQ (and probably some from the Liberals) is quite interesting. The case of Victor Levy-Beaulieu is quite instructive about it.
VLB is a renowned quebecois author who's a fierce independist and always supportive of the PQ. He lives in Trois-Pistoles which is about 200 K east of Quebec so he is part of the rural world. Most if not all of the novels and tv series he wrotes are set in the rural world and before the 1950's when not before 1900's. So this time, he declared that he is going to vote for the ADQ. And his answer to the critics from some of the PQ's members was that he his more naionalist than the PQ. His meaning of nationalist is "grass root" nationalist. That's bring us to the urban-rural divide.
That divide has been there for quite a long time but lately it has been exacertate by national and worldwide globalization. Beside the traditional grievances like the economic supremacy of Montreal over the regions, now there is cultural hegemony that add up to the problem. For exampl, one of the effect of national globalization is that all radio stations are now part of big network so in consequence people in Rimouski, or Val-D'Or, etc., when they listen to the radio at 5:00 PM, they're hearing about the traffic jam on Jacques-Cartier bridge but nothing on the situation in their towns. Most TV shows represent situation in the big city but nothing about them. They don't recognize themselves anymore in the medias. So, not only are they economically forgotten, not they are culturally oblirated. They feel threatened in what they are and getting angry. When you add immigration with the different religions, ways of life, etc. it is just too much for them.
We are forcing them to change and forced changes always ring a lot of resistance. A lot of work will be needed in order to work something together on a common future. Especially that immigation will grow up in the future with climatic changes. 2007 is turning concerning refugees. For the first time since the UN collect data on refugees, the number of environmental refugees is greater than the number of political refugees. And we could expect hordes of them coming in the next few decades. "Grass root" nationalism will then be a major problem.
Thank you Serge. This gives me more clarity on the Quebec scene. Still, I wonder on the almost even distribution of the vote. Which would you identify as the key differences between the three main alternatives (PQ, ADQ and PLQ)?
I think the situation we have here is not a vote split in 3 but more of a "double double" split. I'll try to explain what I mean by that.
First, the answer to your question about the differences between the 3 main alternatives. The ADQ is the center-right party, but most of his attraction is due to his (false) populist discourse. Then, beside the difference on the status of Quebec, you could hardly make a difference between the Liberals and the PQ programs although the PQ is a little bit more to the left. That's where we find the first split and we find it on the left-right scale and the results are 67% center and 33% center-right. The second split, naturally, is the one about independance of Quebec. When you look at the geographic repartition of the vote, it totally reflect that. The ADQ got most of his vote in suburbia and the center of the province where you find most of the middle class as a result of their populist discourse. They use the Harper's tactic: populist ant not much talk about their neo-liberal measures. Then you have Montreal and all the periphery of the province where the split was about Quebec status. The Liberals got people elected where there is a strong anglophones presence and the PQ got the rest. Last referendum, over 60% of the francophones voted "yes" and the latest poll show, even if the PQ got only 28% of the votes that 44% will still vote yes.
I think that the population have been pretty smart. They just said that they don't like or trust them enough to give anyone the power even if the ADQ consider their rise as a huge victory.
It's mostly that they don't recognize themselves in the PQ or Liberals programs. Traditionnaly the PQ is social democrat party and the Liberals somewhere between that and center. But since 1995, they both move toward the center; Bouchard and Charest are ex-conservatives and the one that followed Bouchad as leaders of the PQ just walked in his steps. The problem is that they are not representative of their electoral base. The Pequist are still fundamentally social democrats and the anglophones in Quebec always and, I think, still are progressives. Both the Liberals and the PQ have to make big changes on their positionning if they want to be representatives of their bases.
The Dems were stronger in urban cores; Repubs in suburbs/rural...
Remember that these are results of Representative Democracy [i.e.what you want your party to do... especially the leader]. So you have gangs of party members basically fighting each other for power[dominant values] in whatever the media that people are hooked into.
I>v
[Ideals are greater than values]
Would make a great T-shirt logo.
But in the OST conceptualization, four ideals[including belonging] are taken together as a set.
Being from the rural areas,IMO most Belonging flows from the community projects or challenges. Infrastructure=road/cars,electricity,ICT,non-denominational Church,community hall,community org.,money,forest,sky and field.
In the absence of projects no collaborative large group action is present. Most peolpe are members of employment orgs deeper in the urban landscapes.
In the Cafe question how will the other 3 Ideal seekings manifest? For me the Belonging[homonomy]will follow upon common project [collectively best for all, that nurtures and is 'beautiful'].
Look forward to "thinking together" in the urban areas.
Chris
PS With the third non-participating group who does not vote, imagine if participative democracy were to break out amongst these people! A significant percentage. Why don't people vote?
Apparently the poor have so consistently been ignored by both parties in the US that there is no point in the game. In Canada there are some historic reasons to participate.
Post a Comment