Canada: Failed State or Failed People?
May 4, 2005 · By Max West
Is Canada the “next failed state”? According to a recent column in the Washington Times, the country is likely to fall apart if Liberal sleaze leads to Quebec’s secession.
But their diagnosis is wrong because they misunderstand our underlying problem. The problem is not that in Canada, there’s no “there” there. The real problem of Canada is that there’s no “who” there. It’s not that Canada is a failed state but that Canadians are a failed people
There is no people called Canadians. There is no nation because there is no national culture. Canada is nothing more than a scattering of transplanted peoples, discouraged by official government policy from uniting as a real nation.
As usual in politics, the biggest problems of today are the result of political solutions in the past. Multiculturalism in Canada grew from the forced marriage of post-colonial orphans in the 19th century. And as in all bad marriages, the results were visited upon the children.
In the 20th century, biculturalism became multiculturalism but the underlying problem remains. We cannot have a national culture because the partners of the old marriage will not allow it. Badly matched from the beginning, the larger partner agreed to bind and fracture itself in order to appease the smaller one. Hence Canada as a people remains stunted and broken by the conditions of its birth.
What’s the solution? Getting rid of multiculturalism would only get rid of the symptom. The limits to the growth of Canada as a people remain centred on the Ottawa River. If Canada is to become a real nation, one of the old partners must go.
That’s why the Washington pundits are wrong. Quebec separatism would not be the end of Canada as a state. It would the birth of Canada as a real people. It’s the solution, not the problem.
If Quebec were to go, the birth trauma would be offset by the prospects of true cultural growth on both sides. With strengthened cultural authenticity, Quebec would be an even better, more interesting place to visit. With time and from mutual self-interest, it would become a strong trading partner.
For the rest of the country, political life would begin anew. Far from being the end of Canada, Quebec separation is the last-best hope for the nation. Only in a post-Quebec future can Canada become a true country. The birth of a real Canada can only begin with a “yes” to a real Quebec.
Adieu et bon chance, mes amis. Hello to your real self, Canada!
a few weeks back, during a media scrum, the illustrious mr. martin summed up part of the above in very concise language: we are a nation of minorities. i know he meant this in a different context, but his agreement in principle suggests that your comments are no secret. but why stop with Quebec? why not encourage the rest of this artificial state break into smaller constituent parts too? in my mind we need a real debate about the principles and virtues that weave us together, and i don’t believe we can have that debate unless we start over from the beginning.
I disagree rather intensely - to assert that there is no “Canadian People” is downright insulting.
I was born in this nation, raised here, and I’m damned well about as Canadian as you can get. Can I quantify “what a Canadian is”? No - because Canada, and therefore, Canadians are many things. We are not a monolith of uniformity and coherence, nor are we ever likely to be.
Ask me, or any of my friends and associates to be something other than Canadian, and you will discover that in fact there is a Canadian People, and a Canadian Culture. It seems vague and ephemeral because it is varied and rich in its fabric.
The constant haggle with Quebec actually forms a part of that fabric. I may tire of it from time to time, but I would not for one minute assert that Quebec is any less a part of Canada, nor would I assert that Canada had failed should Quebec secede. Canada will have undoubtedly changed, but failure is far too strong a word.
John: Which “beginning” are you speaking of? If 1867, it seems that founding was in fact quite utilitarian, a way of securing responsible government as well as security for the northern part of the continent. Since we no longer have responsible government nor security for that matter, then it seems we’ve betrayed, or moved on, from the conditions that made 1867 necessary.
Grog: Your indignation prevents you from explaining what principles of Canadianess you find so compelling. If your idea of Canada is being in a dysfunctional relationship with a partner that requires bribes to remain with you, and then complains when you bribe them, then that doesn’t strike me as a very happy relationship.
Tom: by “beginning,” an ideal would be a tabula rasa. Since that is not realistic, smaller constituent parts would be favourable, and perhaps at that level some measure of consensus could be achieved on principles that unite us, first in smaller parts, and then possibly in larger. Grog’s passion doesn’t obscure the simple fact that his/her Canada can only be identified by what it is not. When one tolerates everything, she stands for nothing. Grog’s comments are transparent only through the relativistic lens through which Canada is viewed: it will succeed or fail regardless of what happens with Quebec. My guess is Grog is a victim of public education - full of self esteem and passionate intensity, but signifying nothing.
“A victim of public education”?
Let’s put it this way - I am a Canadian, and I’m proud of a lot of things in this nation.
Canada has a unique dynamic to it that I find both admirable and fascinating. Do we cleave to a “slogan” (a la the United States)? No. But there is strange clarity of the notion of Canada that goes far beyond the limits of mere words.
The fact that Canadian society has adapted in so many unique ways to the cultures of our various immigrant populations is no small feat, and speaks volumes to what Canada is. You say “when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing”. I would argue that you are very misguided in that. Canada stands for an inclusiveness of society that is unique in this world. What it DOES NOT stand for is intolerance and bigotry. What it is not is an absolute.
Go read this nation’s constitution - carefully - and perhaps you might come to understand that the absolutes Canada stands for are inclusive in nature, not exclusive. Those who would exclude others from full participation in our society are those that are currently experiencing the most angst.
Grog: What “slogan” does the US cling to? “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? How is this a slogan? Have you not pondered the natural rights philosophy behind the Declaration? Did Lincoln consider it merely a slogan?
Is it empirically true that Canada is more “inclusive” than the US? On the side of logic, I dispute your claim that one can have “inclusive” absolutes. That’s a contradiction in terms. “Inclusion” is a relative term. It denotes a category that’s more expansive than what you’re comparing it to. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you mean by referring to the Canadian Constitution as more inclusive than the US. What categories, precisely, are you referring to? Are you referring to freedom of speech? Where the 1st Amendment affords greater protections for Americans than s. 2 of the Charter affords Canadians, where libel law in Canada constitutes a greater threat to journalists than it does in the US(despite the perception that the US is the more litigious culture).
Failure to distinguish what you mean makes “inclusion” an empty slogan, which I suspect you wish to avoid.
Walk down any street in Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles and you’ll see that, in terms of demographics, those cities are far more multicultural then any Canadian city including Toronto. Moreover, Anglos in Canada make up a much larger proportion of the population than they do in the US.
I don’t see Canada as being more “inclusive” than the US, whatever “inclusion” means.
Tom, let me make a few points here:
1) Part of my point is that Canada’s underlying character does not render itself in any kind of “slogan-like” phrase. This is an aspect of Canada that has long perplexed both Canadians and others. I used the reference to the US “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” merely as an example.
2) I did not intend to compare Canada to the US in terms of how culturally diverse our cities are. That was not my point, nor would it ever be. It is at best farcicle to compare Canadian and American cities.
3) Since Canada’s body of case law based on our Constitution (especially the charter) is only just over 20 years old, attempting some kind of comparative analysis of the “strength” of the protections provided therein with the various clauses and amendments of the US Constitution is suspect at best. With some 200 years of case law behind it, the relationships between various aspects of the US constitution and its guarantees are much more clearly understood. I would be very reluctant to make any claims in that regard in Canada.
4) Much of my experience with US cities and culture comes out of the “deep south” (Texas, Georgia, Tennessee etc.) While cities like New York, Chicago and LA may be relatively diverse, once you hit Atlanta, or Houston, the character and tone changes radically. (And not, IMO, for the better)
5) My initial point was not to compare Canada with the US - Canada is not the United States any more than it is France, the UK or Russia. We share a border with the US, that doesn’t make us the US, nor should we define ourselves in terms of what we are (or are not) relative to the US. Doing so does this nation a grave disservice.
Canada is many things - none of them are perfect, and none of them are necessarily “clear and concrete”. The mistake that American commentators repeatedly make is that because Canada is not defined in terms of a revolution or other political upheaval that we are “undefined”, and that there is therefore nothing to hold Canada together. I think that is a gross oversimplification of this nation and its dynamics.
Grog: I’m still perplexed why you think Canada is worth defending. You haven’t explained the principles it embodies that you think deserve defending. Does it deserve defending because of the weight of tradition? That doesn’t strike me as a very good reason. Does it deserve defending because it proves useful for its inhabitants? That really depends on which inhabitants. The PQ yesterday claimed that Quebec would be financially better off than if it stays in Canada. If they’re right, and I don’t know whether they are, then what reason do you have to explain why they should stay?
Interesting that Grog has not, beside reciting Sheila Copps-style slogans, been able to articulate what it is that is Canadian culture or nationality. An affirmation of nation does not make it a nation. Please see the over 600 tribes and bands in Canada that claim the same nationhood Grog does. And even more interesting I find that he accuses our southern neighbours of sloganeers when they are actually the ones with a substantial identity and raison d’etre. Finally, I find pitiful the argument that the Charter is some sort of beginning of nationhood. The charter is one of the last purely symbolic gestures, as far as identity is concerned, of trying to affirm something Canadian about ourselves while at the same time denying and destroying that which is more essentially a part of Canada –the British traditions. The Charter, the Charter. Ironic that they should use it as defining of a Canadian identity when it has so Americanized our politics! Amazing that people want to use the Charter as a medium of bonding the country when in fact it has done the opposite; it has driven “Canadians” further and further apart.
Perhaps the reason that I haven’t articulated a concrete answer to “what is a Canadian Identity” has eluded you. Canaidian Identity from what I’ve seen is still a very individual thing - as individual as Canadians themselves. It isn’t my responsibility to define Canada for you. There will always be naysayers that claim that Canada has no “reason” for existing. The platypus has no reason to exist either, yet it does - for of all its odd contradictions.
As for the Charter, like it or not, it represents a breaking of our legal relationship with UK law. Prior to the 1983 Constitution (of which the Charter is a major portion), every legal decision made in this country was ultimately appealable back to the UK. When we broke that tie, Canada opened a unique, new chapter in its history - one that will define Canada into the future in ways that have yet to be fully understood.
If you fail to acknowledge the Charter’s impact as part of the legal and social foundations of this land, then you will be even more seriously impaired in understanding what Canada is. I happen to disagree that it has “divided” Canadians - that is far too simplistic an analysis of a very subtle, complex topic. The Charter has laid down a foundation of human rights law in this country that makes a lot of people nervous as it requires a great deal of adjustment on all parts. (I know that a lot of conservative commentators dislike the Charter and point back to the predecessor “Bill of Rights”, claiming that the Charter was unnecessary - the difference is that the Bill of Rights was a mere act of parliament, and could be repealed by a subsequent act of parliament; the Charter is embedded in the Constitution, and is much more difficult to override - even with section 33)
Decrying the Charter (actually, the Constitution as a whole) as “destroying the British Traditions” is - IMO - a disingenuous argument. So much of the British heritage in reflected in the structure of our government, the courts and other areas of our society that I find it laughable that you could argue that they are being “destroyed”. Is Canada changing? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. I think of it as similar to when our children move out and begin their own lives. They will grow as a result of their experiences, and yet they will retain much of what we taught them as they mature. I am not the same as my parents, yet we share a great deal.
So - getting back to Tom’s question about what makes Canada worth fighting for? Let’s start with a common history of immigrant settlement. How about a legal system that is designed around the presumption of innocence? Freedoms to exist as human beings, despite our differences. And above all else, the right to carry on this discussion.
Do other nations share these rights - absolutely. Does that make me want to throw away the country I live in? Absolutely not. Does it infuriate me when people criticize Canada by comparing us to the Americans - yes.
BTW - try asking a Scotsman if they are British, and you’ll get an answer that is similar to asking me if I’m American.
Grog: You confuse the British legal argument for the British cultural argument, and in so doing, at the end of your post you defend the Charter on the basis of its inheritance of British common law principles.
I agree that immigrants have changed the shape of Canada. However, arguably they see Canada as attractive because of its commitments to the kinds of liberties that you mention, all of which derive from British common law.
If anything, the Charter represents a move toward a continentalist understanding of law as code but unfortunately with the British common law view that law evolves as traditions evolve (thus the nonsense of the law being a “living tree”). THe problem with this hybrid is that it gives judges enormous powers not found in either British or continental systems. It’s the worst of both worlds.
As for the Charter “dividing” Canadians, you’re right to argue that Canadians were never really “unified” to begin with (though consider the implications of that!).
Even so, I think a better way of understanding the “divided” argument is that the Charter tends to inflate policy preferences into grandiose rights claims.
If politics involves winning some conflicts, while losing others. Inflating policy preferences into rights claims turns all conflicts into zero sum games where the stakes are absolute. I win absolutely, you lose absolutely, or vice-versa. No negotation, little or no hope for future amendation. Liberal democracy is meant precisely to avoid this kind of absolutist phenomenon, a point lost to most Charterphiles.
Just look at the bloodthirsty celebrating by people who want Bishop Fred Henry not only shut up, but thrown into jail (which will happens if he gets fined and when he refuses to pay his fine).
[...] ncophones. But apart from that almost specious point, this objection really highlights the faults in Canada as a nation. The West and Quebec clearly rej [...]
[...] eckers, the logic dictates that only Quebeckers should be prime misters of Canada.” Canada: Failed State or Failed People?: “There is no pe [...]
Grog, ugh, you look like American, you smell like American, you sound like American….you MUST be American.
With name like Grog, this be good way of thinking.
Charter feel good….MUST be goooooood! UGH!
[...] Malcomson and Richard Myers’s textbook, The Canadian Regime (I’ll refer you in Max West’s capable hands to consider the deeper questio [...]
[...] he rest of Canada and underscoring the point made countless times on this blog that Canada shouldn’t really be one nation. As Quebec gets more and [...]