| Home Page of Pierre Lemieux |
Published in The Wall Street Journal ("The Americas" column), September 16, 1994
MONTREAL--One must not read too much in the Sept. 12 election held in the province of Quebec. No clear question was asked, the voters confirmed no intelligible mandate, and an idea that is basic to both economic prosperity and constitutional change was barely mentioned during the campaign: individual liberty.
The separatist Parti Quebecois got only 0.4% more of the popular vote than the Liberal Party's 44.4%. Given the overall 82% participation rate, less than 37% of eligible voters elected the new government. And adding to the obfuscation of meaning in this election, a new party, the separatist-leaning Action Democratique du Quebec, headed by a 24-year-old underdog, reaped an unexpectedly high 6.5% of the vote, testifying to the dissatisfaction factor among the voters.
This election was replete with ambiguities. The Parti Quebecois ran on a platform stressing its social-democratic program--"the other way to govern," as their advertising put it. It promised that its separatist option would be dealt with in a separate referendum, to be held next year. As recent opinion polls show that only 40% to 45% of the Quebec electorate favor separation, the PQ support must have come not only from the separatists but also from voters simply dissatisfied with the Liberal Party's record.
Another major ambiguity lies in the similarity of the Liberals and the PQ in matters of social and economic policy. While in power from 1986 to now, the Liberal Party basically pursued traditional interventionist policies. As a crude indicator, the Liberal government produced 50% more pages of new laws than the PQ government had from 1977 to 1985. As for regulations, the Liberals did enact fewer on average from 1986 until 1993 than the PQs did during their term in office. But while the trend for creating new regulations had been descending under the PQs, it was apparently increasing under the Liberals.
Public account figures indicate that the ratio of provincial public expenditures to GDP had grown by 2.9 percentage points under the PQ, and dropped by a marginal 0.3 point under the liberals--thanks to rapid economic growth in the second half of the 1980s. As a proportion of GDP, the deficit decreased slightly under the PQ, and increased a bit under the Liberal Party. Total (including federal) public expenditures in Quebec now amount to 55% of provincial GDP.
During the election campaign, the Parti Quebecois promised more--much more--of the same. One of their electoral ads provides a good illustration of their old-timer brand of socialism. It is titled: "No laisser-faire. Only solidarity." Disregarding what every student of French history knows, that the correct spelling is "laissez-faire," the ad goes on to argue that what they call the free-market approach of the Liberal Party has to be replaced by state intervention!
This is not to say that ideological distinctions between the two parties were clear on economic issues. The outgoing Liberal prime minister, Daniel Johnson, may have appeared more free-market during the campaign, but he had no real alternative to offer. Richard Vigneault, a spokesman for Mr. Johnson confirmed to me that the Liberal Party intended to reduce both government expenditures and taxes, and to eliminate the deficit. (Mr. Parizeau, the PQ leader, declined to respond at all to a similar query about his tax and budget policies.)
Yet, the Liberal Party did not question any of the main government programs, and made a host of expensive election promises. The ideological confusion shows in the fact that a well-known former radical trade unionist, Yvon Charbonneau, was elected under the Liberal banner, while the former seemingly free-market president of the Quebec Manufacturers' Association, Richard LeHir, won election as a PQ candidate.
So, it is not clear what the Quebecers voted for. Elections do have political and economic consequences, though. The most likely short-term scenario is increasing government intervention and more public expenditures to buy off preferred clienteles before the referendum. The Quebec taxpayer, of course, will eventually foot the bill. Although the PQ program talks about "more progressive taxes" and "reducing tax breaks," a larger deficit is more likely in the short run. If the PQ administrators follow through on their promised assault on the underground economy and tax evasion, we are likely to see more of the old, coercive income-reporting requirements, controls and inspections, and higher penalties for tax evaders.
In the event that the upcoming--or another future--referendum comes out in favor of separation, which is certainly a possibility, there are two scenarios. The pessimistic scenario suggests a continuation in the growth of state intervention, with foreign scapegoats being blamed for the deterioration in the standard of living, and nationalist feelings being called upon to further repress liberty and prosperity. The Republic of Quebec would also find a few local scapegoats--for instance, the Indians tribes who would try to secede from Quebec. In chaotic political systems, anything can happen.
The optimistic scenario runs like this. Following some South American countries, the independent Quebec state resorts to free-market policies if only to finance its debt on international markets. Moreover, Quebecers may not be the most politically correct and obedient people in North America. For example, during an election night panel hosted by Quebec state television (which is usually quite politically correct), one of the panelists, a well-known separatist, conspicuously smoked cigarettes in violation of federal law. The social engineers of independent Quebec may have problems controlling this kind of iconoclastic mindset. Add to this the bleak future of individual liberty in today's Canada, and separation would turn out to be a good thing.
But for now, there are two main problems in Canada: the French and the English, or perhaps it's the other way around. Few people seem interested in the important question, which is how to reverse the dramatic erosion of our liberties. The federal government and the new Quebec government are run by two French Canadians who believe in what French political theorist Bertrand de Jouvenel called "totalitarian democracy," i.e, what Tocqueville had foreseen as the "tyranny of the majority." The only thing these two tyrants don't agree on is which territorial tribe who should be king.
Mr. Lemieux is a Montreal-based economist and author.