|
"CANADA'S EXPERIENCE AND THE FEDERAL
APPROACH FOR THE 21ST CENTURY"
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS TO
THE
AUSTRIAN SOCIETY OF FOREIGH AFFAIRS
VIENNA, AUSTRIA
JANUARY 23, 1998
Even though I have the same last name as Céline Dion, I don't have her voice,
and I have even less of a voice today. Last week in Canada, in Ontario and
Quebec, especially in Quebec, we experienced a horrendous week of freezing rain,
the worst on record since they started keeping weather statistics, and I spent
the week travelling to villages where they had no electricity, no telephone, in
the dark, and I never in my life thought that I would see that, tree branches
falling on cars, and everything ... and on houses, pylons that toppled onto
houses, and all that made me think that we really do live in a global village,
and that global warming really does seem to be a reality, and that we won't be
able to deal with it without extensive integration by all countries, and that's
one of the themes I'm going to talk about, governance in a global world and the
role of federalism in that governance.
And I'm very pleased to speak here in Vienna,
because only ten years ago Vienna sat on the frontier of a divided Europe and
today your city is at the centre of a new Europe. You have seen the
extraordinary transformation of Eastern Europe, something unimaginable 10 years
ago. Both Austria's physical location and your new role in the world,
exemplified by your forthcoming presidency of the European Union, make your city
a perfect place to reflect on some of the major changes in the world order. In
particular, I will focus on what is happening in the world where there is an
expansion of democracy and democratic practices, and the role of federations
within it. I propose to do so from my perspective as a Canadian and a Quebecker,
and as a minister responsible for the relationship between governments within a
federation.
Well, it's true that we see the expansion of
democratic rule as we look around the globe, whether we look east from Vienna,
or to South America, and in some ways in Asia too where we see the expansion of
democracy. We see that more and more, there is a developing consensus around the
world that democracy, meaning popularly elected governments and the rule of law,
provide the best formula for the internal governance of a society.
But there is also increasing evidence that
Emmanuel Kant was right in his view that the external problem of governance, of
creating an international society of peaceful states, would be more assured if
those states are democratic. Democracy is good for internal governance, and it
is good for external governance. In fact, it is difficult to name two
well-established democracies that have been involved in a war one against the
other. I'm not saying it will never happen, but I think that freedom of public
opinion, of counter powers and of the rule of law help countries to resolve
their conflicts with each other peacefully.
But the transition from a totalitarian regime to
a democracy has been difficult in many places, and you know that because you've
just seen it very near to your country. We have been living through a period of
dramatic political rupture, the product of communism with all its consequences.
You have been close witnesses to the upheaval in Eastern Europe, including the
break-up of several countries, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union.
But what characterizes all these break-ups?
First, they took place in multi-ethnic or multi-lingual countries. Second, they
were countries with very weak democratic traditions. They have no history of
years of political debate and accommodation. They exploded when the lid of
dictatorship released international and internal pressures. Take for instance,
the smoothest of those that has happened, the break-up of Czechoslovakia, I
think that had that country experienced another 10 years of universal suffrage,
a charter of rights, pressure groups, all those things that we have in
well-established democracies, and then the break-up would have been much more
difficult.
It would have been impossible for two leaders to
negotiate it almost in a conspiratory way with the knowledge that only a third
of their population supported this. It would have been impossible to negotiate
the break-up without giving a voice to the Hungarian minority in Slovakia. It's
only one example that shows that in a democracy, in a well-established
democracy, a secession has never occurred until now. It doesn't mean that it is
impossible; it just means that the break-ups we are seeing in those countries
are not phenomena connected with modernisation and the global economy and so on.
They are phenomena connected with the end of a totalitarian rule, with the end
of something that was created at the beginning of the century and belongs in
some way to that era.
But well-established democracies experience these
same kinds of pressures. With economic globalization, macro-economic and
micro-politics are something that we see more and more. The question that I want
to ask you is whether you think that globalization might affect the integrity of
existing democratic space. Do you think that we will see the same kind of
collapse that we have seen in these new democracies? Is it possible that we will
see break-ups now in well-established democracies because of the pressures of
the global economy and global politics?
I would also like to ask you whether it seems
that the global economy encourages in some way regionalist or particularist
identities within nation states. There are some forces that are strengthening
sub-national identities. For example, economic integration may enhance the
political importance of regional economies relative to national economies as
regions try to cope with much larger markets. In my country for instance, more
and more Canadian regions trade with their neighbours, the U.S. states located
close to them. At the same time the value of internal trade to the Canadian
economy is decreasing. So perhaps regions want to have more room so that they
may be able to be more competitive in their own economic area. The links are
increasingly north-south much more than east-west.
There are also large-scale increases in
immigration of different racial or ethnic backgrounds in this global economy,
and this can invigorate local nationalism in reaction. There are countries, I
think your country is one of them, where you see new parties in reaction to
that, that wish to create or foster a false sense of homogeneity in order to
face those difficulties.
Perhaps the liberal values associated with
international integration, that is to say pluralism, group rights and tolerance,
can themselves serve to strengthen localism and create an environment where
group identities and grievances may be encouraged and heard. Throughout the
world, democratization often follows a huge number of particular demands for
local autonomy.
But there are other forces that can lead to
democratization other than localism. Economic integration creates tremendous
pressures for harmonization of economic rules, and thus limits the real
possibilities of localism. The striking conversions in consumers' tastes dampen
distinctive national or sub-national behaviours. Moreover, at the cultural
level, the values of internationalization may bring more sympathy for group
identity, but they are also associated with a broader conception of universal
human involvement, which tends to put limits on demands for particularist
treatment.
We have also the multiplication of formal
international agreements that emphasize the value of a broader community as well
as the benefits for those within individual countries to be relatively united in
dealing with foreign partners. Thus, I believe there is a dynamic of centripetal
and centrifugal forces playing out in many of our democratic societies. For the
most part, I believe it is possible to accommodate those contrasting effects
within existing states, and that federalism can often be a very effective way to
help achieve this.
Federalism is a form of governance which has
proven itself over two centuries in a wide variety of forms. It's particularly
suited to societies with very large populations or large physical spaces. In
fact, with the single exception of Japan, all democracies with populations of 60
million people or more, India, the USA, Germany, Russia and Brazil are
federations, and the same is true of continental-sized countries like Canada or
Australia.
Federalism also suits multi-ethnic or
multi-lingual societies. India, Canada, Switzerland have long been federations,
but it is significant that bilingual Belgium and multilingual South Africa have
themselves recently adopted this form of governance. Federalism has been used
very consciously to limit the risk of an excessive concentration of power within
a democracy. Both the United States and Germany have been inspired by these
considerations.
Federalism is also an extremely flexible system
of government, as I have discussed today with my colleagues of the Bundesrat and
the Austrian government. Federalism can be combined with different parliamentary
systems, electoral rules and approaches to the division of power. Of course,
federalism is not suitable for all societies, but I believe that Alexis de
Toqueville was fundamentally right when he wrote in the last century that, and I
quote: "The federal system was created with the intention of combining the
advantages which result from the magnitude and smallness of nations", end
quote.
It is a system, federalism, which will help a
world with over 3,000 geographically defined ethnic groups come to terms with a
state system of only 200 or so members. My analysis explains in large measure
both my commitment to and my optimism regarding the Canadian federal system. So
let me speak about Canada a bit.
We Canadians now have the third oldest federation
in the world, one which has permitted Canada to grow, prosper and develop its
distinct identity. I speak as a Francophone Quebecker. My own society is in a
unique situation in North America. In Quebec, we have a Francophone majority and
an Anglophone minority. It is natural that as Quebeckers, we should have a
strong sense of our identity, and a sense of vulnerability when faced with the
tremendous presence and attractiveness of the sea of English speakers all around
us. In fact, if we don't include Mexico, the quasi-continent that is the U.S.
and Canada is the first roughly unilingual continent since the beginning of
human history, at a time when the number of languages is decreasing instead of
increasing in the world for the first time in history. So don't be surprised if
we Quebeckers, French-speaking Quebeckers, feel a bit isolated. We are not
living in a plurilingual continent like Europe. We are facing the language that
is, in addition to being the international language, the language of
assimilation par excellence.
But we Quebeckers have built and developed our
unique society within Canada's federal framework. One hundred and thirty years
after Canada's establishment as a federation, Quebec is more Francophone, at 84
per cent of the population, than it has ever been. Federalism has not only
permitted us to achieve our societal goals, it has enriched us culturally and
encouraged us, like our fellow Canadians in other provinces, to develop a
greater tolerance and a larger sense of solidarity.
In fact, the 19th century was a century of
assimilation. Even liberal thinkers of the time believed that it was their duty
to ensure that all individuals had the same opportunities in life. When you are
French in a place where English is the language of industry, you're supposed to
become English. It's good for you. So it was liberal assimilation, if you want.
It was the ideology of the time.
But the British in Canada tried to assimilate the
French and they failed. Then, both communities had to learn to accept each
other, respect each other, help each other. In turn, those two populations in
Canada were more prepared to accept and to welcome fellow citizens coming from
throughout the world, from every continent. That explains why today this
multicultural country that is Canada, in comparative studies, is almost always
among the top for tolerance, for racial diversity, for immigration. I could list
many other achievements of my country in improving the quality of life there and
so on, but this one alone makes me very proud to be Canadian.
This achievement has been with Canadians since
their beginning, because the English and the French populations were required to
learn to accept each other. I think it would be a shame, now that we have
achieved that, to send to the rest of the world the message that we tried, but
finally for the French and the British populations and now the Francophones and
Anglophones, the modern way to say it, separation is the sole way to live. I
think it would be a terrible mistake because federalism, as a public philosophy,
encourages tolerance which is expressed through our ability to understand
different ways of doing things.
The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor - and
he's a Quebecker, too - talks about the diversity whereby citizens recognize
their citizenship in a number of different ways. It means having plural
identities ourselves and accepting difference, but in some measures, sharing
plural identities with others. I'm a Quebecker and a Canadian, and I don't see
any contradiction between the two. I want to convince my fellow citizens that
this is the case and that to share this country, this generous federation with
populations that don't speak our language, who don't have always our cultural
references but want to help us and accept our help, is an opportunity, a great
opportunity for ourselves and the next generation.
Sharing this country with people of different
backgrounds, whether from the Atlantic civilisations, the Asiatic civilisations
or the Pacific ones, is great. I don't want to see my ten-year-old daughter lose
this opportunity because we think that those people don't want us or we because
they think that we don't want them. This would be a terrible mistake.
I guess it's the same kind of situation in many
countries in Europe where people have to accept to be Catalan, Spanish, and also
European. Why not? Who is to say there is a contradiction between those
identities if we are able to find good accommodations for them in the state?
These ideas will help you understand why I oppose separatism in my own country
and generally consider it a misguiding philosophy in democratic societies.
Although secession may be justified in the colonial context, where you don't
enjoy the right of citizenship, in a country where as a French speaker I have
the same rights as an English speaker, I don't see one reason why secession
should be advocated.
In fact, it's certainly not a coincidence that
finally, international law does not recognize the right of self-determination in
its extreme form -- that is, the right of secession -- outside colonial
situations. In a colonial situation it is right, but outside a colonial
situation it is not right according to international law. While we recognize the
possibility that we might accept a secession when it is done, there is no right
to secession. I think there is a philosophy behind that.
There should be no need for separation in
pluralistic democratic societies. Federalism is a formula that not only
reconciles a wide variety of objectives, but can go further, creating a richer
climate of tolerance and respect.
I want to say before I conclude that more and
more Canadians realize that our never-ending Canadian debate is not only a
Canadian debate, it is a universal one. I am certain that many Austrians too do
not want to see Canada set a bad example for your new neighbours. You want
stability, you deserve stability, you are working to encourage your neighbours
to find a peaceful solution.
In a country as rich as Canada, as full of
opportunities as Canada, if we say to the rest of the world, "don't try it,
we failed", how will those new countries succeed? It will be a very bad
precedent. I know what will happen. I know that in many countries, majorities
will look to the situation in Canada and will say, "oh, we should not be as
democratic as Canada has been, as decentralized and tolerant as Canada has been,
as open to our minorities as Canada has been, because then our minorities will
destroy us".
As a Quebecker, I'm not proud to hear the word
Quebec in the United States Congress when they discuss the possibility of
accepting Puerto Rico as a state and the opponents have said we don't want to
create a Caribbean Quebec. I'm not very proud when, in a referendum campaign in
Britain, those opposed to giving the Scots and the Welsh parliaments said,
"you don't want to create a Quebec in Britain". I want to hear the
reverse. I want to hear majorities throughout the world say, "we should be
liberal and tolerant of our minorities because in Canada Quebeckers and other
Canadians are helping each other and they have a strong federation there that
works well". We must invent our Canadas, our own Canadas. We must not
destroy the one that exists already. We in Canada are aware of these universal
components of our debate.
Let me conclude by saying that I believe that we
who live in federal regimes have a great deal to learn from one another and to
contribute to the search for a better world. In the last week, I have visited
the four European federations of Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The
lessons I have gained from each made me see my own country with fresh eyes and
will inspire me to reconsider some of our practices in Canada.
I believe there would be value in replicating
this kind of experience more generally by creating a forum through which
federations can meet occasionally to share experiences and ideas. Not only would
this benefit the older federations like Austria and Canada, but I think it could
help those in countries like South Africa and Russia, which are working to put
in place new, stable federal systems.
I have raised this idea with my European
interlocutors and have been pleased with their interest. I will be pursuing it
in the coming months. It will be part of my task as the sole unity minister in a
well-established democracy; I am the president, the chair, a member of the club
of unity ministers and my aim, my goal is to end the need for my own role and to
live in as safe and as united a federation as Austria.
Check against delivery.
|
