On nationhood

Some of the strongest voices against PMS' motion to recognize Quebec as a nation have been Dipper bloggers who aren't happy with the party's willingness to support the declaration. But I'll argue against the grain on this one: in my view the NDP's stance is probably a poor one from the standpoint of maximizing seats, but is nonetheless the right one on principle.

Let's start with why the move is a bad one politically. I've argued for quite some time, and still believe to be true, that the Western populist vote (along with other protest votes in general) forms probably the NDP's greatest chance of expanding its vote to push its way to a top-two position. And with PMS flip-flopping to move the "nation" resolution forward, the NDP could have gone a long way toward winning some of that vote by positioning itself as the only federal party not willing to grant a perceived special status to Quebec.

Sure, there might be some votes to be lost that way as well. But there's probably a lot more potential for the NDP to pick up seats elsewhere than in Quebec...and the usual lack of NDP coverage in the media means the Dippers could have managed to avoid taking much flak from the Ottawa powers that be (which I'd take to be lined up in support of the resolution given the Cons' and Libs' agreement). Which would have made opposing the resolution a relatively low-risk, high-reward action.

In contrast, by supporting the resolution, the NDP does absolutely nothing to distinguish itself from the Libs and the Cons, and indeed makes leading figures in both of those parties appear to be setting the agenda. And in the process it's clearly alienated at least some supporters.

But then, there's the question of principle. And contrary to the concerns that the move does damage to the country and/or the party, the NDP's stance is consistent both with the party's historical position on Quebec, and more importantly its rightful recognition that should-be nations which lack state status either in Canada or abroad shouldn't have their collective status ignored based on that lack of political power. Indeed, it's hard to see how the NDP could seek to improve the real autonomy of First Nations in Canada, or Palestinians in the Middle East, while arguing to deny even a symbolic title in this case.

Which isn't to say that Harper's language couldn't stand to be improved - e.g. by recognizing French-Canadians rather than "Quebecois" as more accurately bearing the sociological definition of "nation". But nonetheless, the NDP's support should be seen as opening the door for proper recognition of underrepresented national groups in general, not merely a one-off step to pander to Quebec. And that should be kept in mind by those tempted to simply lump the NDP in with the other parties whose position is more plainly based on politics.

Update: I'll take a moment to deal also with the criticism of the NDP for supporting the concept of nationhood whether or not it's with Harper's caveat. It's hard to imagine a less logically based critique: if Quebec is indeed a nation, can that possibly be any more or less true based on the status of Canada as a whole?

If anything, it seems to me unreasonable to vote differently between the two competing motions - particularly in the direction planned by the Libs and Cons, since the motion they'll be voting against is effectively included in the motion they'll be voting for. But then, that's based on consistency of reasoning, rather than a desire to form a "united front" regardless of whether that front makes any sense.