Regarding the tasks of the left for the years to come, it seems obvious, particularly following the results of the US presidential election, that we will have to fight multiple difficult battles against an intense right and far-right wind. Simple respect for human rights is not a benchmark for many people. In particular, the right to leave one’s country to escape war, poverty or repression is denied by security authoritarianism and narrow nationalism. Efforts to minimize climate chaos are met with heightened and sometimes violent individualism, in addition to the financial interests of extractivist capitalism. The achievements of the feminist movement of recent generations are being called into question by various conservative, nationalist or religious movements.
The list of upcoming battles could be very long. The main thing is to agree on the fact that the recent and predictable evolution of the political landscape is not favorable to feminist, humanist, environmentalist or internationalist ideas. Liberal democracy itself is undermined by demagogic, sometimes fascistic, authoritarian tendencies. Everywhere, center-right and center-left political forces are demonstrating their inability to successfully wage the necessary battles. In short, we will have to row against the tide for a whole period and set about patiently building counter-powers, resistance movements and a collective vision of a global and radical alternative. Small reforms at the margins or the simple replacement of those currently in power with others will not be enough. Winning the elections will not be enough. We saw this recently in France with the victory of the New Popular Front, erased by presidential authoritarianism and behind-the-scenes shenanigans between the right-wing parties.
POLITICAL ACTION OR POLITICAL CONSUMPTION?
What type of party is suitable for these resistance efforts on several fronts at once, for the patient construction of a social movement capable of turning the tide? A well-oiled electoral machine with a concrete communications plan, prestigious candidates and a big budget will not do the trick. We have just seen the limits of this model with the total bankruptcy of the American Democratic Party. If we limit ourselves to an electoral competition to attract atomized political consumers to “our product”, we will not move forward. Québec solidaire could even lose its feathers from one election to the next, in the face of the institutional steamroller and media capitalism.
Faced with exacerbated and increasingly authoritarian individualism that could be described as egofascism, the alternative must be a process of collective political action. The left must define itself not only by what it proposes, but also by its way of carrying out political work, always on the ground of daily struggles and resistance. Our mode of operation must be centered on collective deliberation in spaces of participatory democracy. The party as a whole must be a school of activism, an incubator of resistance, a meeting point for all people who refuse to be assimilated by the machine to produce docile workers-consumers-citizens.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE STATUTES?
Several proposals under debate in Congress clearly go in the wrong direction. Anything that encourages a relationship of individual political consumption between members and the structure of the organization is to be rejected. No to decision-making referendums. No to universal suffrage for any internal election. In both cases, members find themselves alone when faced with a political decision and have no obligation to discuss it with anyone. We can create “training and discussion spaces”, as desired by the national council, but members have no obligation to participate.
Major political decisions and internal elections should remain in the hands of structures of deliberation, exchange and debate, such as the congress or the national council. This is what has been our strength for almost twenty years. Please note that both for elections by universal suffrage and for referendums, the principle of parity would be abandoned. It is difficult to imagine a way to limit individual voting rights in this context.
Anything that undermines the collegiality of executive structures and the equality between the people who participate in them is also to be rejected. This is the case for the election of spokespersons or the presidency by universal suffrage. This is certainly the case with the introduction of leadership races. We are told that this is so that the spokesperson races are self-financing and also that the collegiality of the CCN will be maintained. These are fine intentions and fine words that ignore political reality. If thousands of dollars are raised and spent on a leadership race, the person who wins that race will not have equal status to the other spokesperson, both in the eyes of most members and in the media and public opinion. And the law prohibits us from using these sums for anything other than the race. So why break with our principles for this lentil dish?
There are also some good ideas in this summary book. A national council composed of people appointed for one-year terms (such as members of association coordinating committees) will be better able to play its role of supervising all party activities. It will be able to meet more quickly, more often, for meetings of varying duration, and therefore react to frequent changes in the economic situation. In short, it will be an effective rudder in the political storms that are coming.
Adding a person responsible for pan-Canadian and international links to the CCN is also an excellent idea. The struggles that we will have to wage will necessarily be international. In particular, the battle for the independence of Quebec will have to be fought with pan-Canadian and international alliances to break the resistance of the federal state and obtain rapid recognition of the new country.
DEBATES TO CONTINUE
On other issues, it seems, after a few months of discussions on the initial list of proposals, that the fruit is not ripe and that the congress should postpone decisions until later. This is particularly the case with the reform of local and regional structures. More in-depth discussions are necessary to finalize a reform that gives us flexibility while respecting the principle of equal rights for members. Currently, too many members do not have the opportunity to participate in a local association and it is these associations that dominate the congress and the CN. Also, too many regional associations are moribund or dormant. We must redefine their role in practice before reflecting these new practices in a structural reform.
This is also the case with the interesting idea of political action committees. These should represent a strengthening of the role of thematic structures in the party, combining the roles of mobilization, training and policy development. But there is too much resistance to this idea among those currently involved in activist networks and thematic commissions. Obviously, the initial intentions of the statutes review committee were poorly translated into specific amendments. Also, the indirect repercussions of this reform (on the political committee in particular) lack precision.
In conclusion, the statutes congress will be an opportunity to decide what type of party we want to build in the coming years. Are we going to give in to institutional and media pressure and make QS a party more and more similar to the others? On the contrary, are we going to resist these pressures and insist on the need to “do politics differently”, as was often said in the early years? Let us hope that Congress will retain the second option.
******
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter – to receive all the links to access the articles published each week.
Every week, PTAG publishes new articles in its different sections (economy, environment, politics, social movements, international news, etc.). The weekly letter sends you by email the links which allow you to access these articles.
Click on this button to subscribe to the PTAG newsletter:
