| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Despite the strength of this movement and the intense emotions associated with its call, the Canadian political establishment has been able to negotiate the issue with ballots rather than bullets. The vast majority of Quebecois have forcefully rejected the few isolated incidents of violence that have taken place in the name of the separatist cause. So Canada has been able to develop peaceful means of addressing the issue within the democratic framework while at the same time respecting its citizens’ different identities. The Canadian approach could be brought forward as a model of how democratic processes can resolve - or at least address – the tensions of multiethnic societies. After all, the mix of French-speaking, English-speaking and ‘First Nations’ Canadians have been able to co-exist, through different sets of political arrangements, for over two hundred years.
However, the success with which mature Canadian democracy has been able to address this subject is the result of a long interregnum in the separatist cause brought about by unique factors in Quebec’s history. Since the British took possession of the French colony of New France (i.e. Canada) through war and treaty in the mid-1700s, tension existed between the different groups. After the United States achieved independence, the resultant influx of English-speakers who had remained loyal to the Crown into the Canadian provinces (at that time Upper and Lower Canada, the latter being modern-day Quebec) only exacerbated political disputes between the two groups. These tensions culminated in the Rebellions of 1837-1838 in both Upper and Lower Canada against rule by the British, which were put down by the British army. At this time, the nationalist Canadian sentiment, for the most part, had the support of the French-speaking population who wanted to preserve their identity, but there was also support from liberal English-speaking Canadians who wanted to end the undemocratic rule of the Crown.
But from the 1840s until the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church dominated Quebecois nationalism and its worldview at that time had a tremendous impact on how French-speakers defined their relations with the state. Since the battle over the role of church and state was at its highest in Europe at the time, specifically in France, the idea of papal authority over all Catholics was being challenged heavily. However in Quebec, because the Church was so influential in this period, in all areas of state activity, it enforced and educated the population with the idea that the Pope’s sovereignty exceeded that of the nation state. So loyalty belonged to the Pope and the Church before the nation and government, a view known as Ultramontanism.xv This was precisely the opposite of the predominant view in the USA and, importantly, in France. So the conservative nationalism that developed in Quebec, until the rise of the contemporary separatist movement, was primarily concerned with the preservation of the French language and Catholic religion, but paradoxically was not concerned about the issue of national self-determination. As soon as Quebecois nationalism took on a more liberal, secular outlook, demands for separation and sovereignty grew apace.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the success of democratic societies in the West, in terms of their relative stability and prosperity, does not stem just from their competitive political frameworks or their secular values. There are historical and cultural factors that have made an immense contribution to their cohesion and development which belies the claim that democracy is a universal system for all societies which can produce the same results for all peoples. The question still remains however, if democracy cannot work for many societies in the non-Western world, is there an alternative system that can do so? Can Iraq provide new answers to this challenge, or will the American experiment ultimately prove to be successful and confound the sceptics?
References
i
Bush , George W. White house Press Conferenc. December 20, 2004. http://www.whitehouse.gov
ii
Krauthammer , Charles. Democratic Realism, An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World. AEI Press, pp.16
iii
Ibid, pp.7
Iv
Interview by Sikorski , Radek. Prospect magazine. December 2004.
V
Krauthammer , Charles. Democratic Realism, An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World. AEI Press. pp.16
Vi
Ibid, pp.15
Vii
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Volume I. Transcribed by Russil Wvong; PPS/13, Nov 6 1947.
Viii
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume I. Transcribed by Russil Wvong; PPS/23, Feb 28 1948.
Ix
Cumings , Bruce. The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. II.
X
Thorson , Andrew H... Understanding Japanese Enterprise Groups. KWR International Advisor #23, December 2003.
Xi
Fuchs , Sybille. Forty years since the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, Part 3-Juridical cover-up of Nazi crimes. April 29, 2004.
Xii
xiii
Schenk , Dieter. The fascist roots of Germany's post-war Criminal Police Office, a review of Blind in the right eye-The fascist roots of the BKA. December 8, 2001.
Xiv
Chaliha, Kumar A. Insurgencies in North-East India. KWR International Advisor #22, November 2003
Xv
Bélanger , Claude. Readings in Quebec History
The Roman Catholic Church and Quebec. Department of History, Marianopolis College.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 4 5 6
Page 6 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
