The margin may not seem much, but in democracies majorities, however narrow, get stamped with legitimacy. In these terms, the vote means that doing nothing might be a legitimate political response to the referendum result in Quebec. But it would not be a legitimate moral response.
It would be better now if both the Quebec provincial Government and the Canadian federal Government acted as if the vote have been half a percent the other way.
On its face, the referendum result shows that a tad under half of Quebec population wants separation and a tad over half do not. The technical majority do not want fundamental change. But underlying the result is an overwhelming expression of dissatisfaction with present constitutional arrangements. Yes; overwhelming. It is overwhelming because any geo-political entity requires not a mere majority but large majority in favour of its political arrangements for stability and to permit a framework of legitimacy within which vigorous, healthy debate can be conducted on a range of important political issues without dangerous divisiveness that can degenerate into violence … something that has happened in Quebec in recent times.
For example, a huge majority of Australians would agree … the symbolism of the republic aside … that the fundamentals of our constitutional arrangements are sound. Perhaps 10, or on a bad day 20, per cent of Western Australians might think of secession. The point is that Australians can engage in strong debate about things like industrial relations, privatisation and Medicare without the debate degenerating into violence or alienation. There is a constitutional framework of acceptance and legitimacy about constitutional arrangements in countries like Australia that has not existed in Canada … because of Quebec … for some time. There have been guerrilla campaigns, political campaigns within the province, major political; disruptions in the federal sphere and attempts at constitutional reform involving referendums. None has reached a satisfactory conclusion. This is mostly because they were couched in black-and-white terms. It was never a black-and-white or yes-vs-no question.
Quebec and Canada need a sensible middle-ground solution. It does not need signs in French in the middle of the English-speaking prairies. Nor does it need prohibition against English business signs without translation in Montreal.
In a close referendum of this kind, it hardly mattered whether the vote was one or two per cent this way or that. Either way, the fact of the large percentage of dissatisfaction with present constitutional arrangements has to be met. There is a need now to institutionalise the extent of emotional separatism.
In doing that care has to be taken not to alienate Indians and Inuit, who at present would prefer the policy of the federal government to the vacuum of policy in their terms in the separatist camp. Further, in the process of giving Quebec more autonomy, opportunist moves by the leaders of other provinces for more provincial rights must be resisted.
To be successful in accommodating Quebec’s obvious differences, it must end up with more powers and in a different relationship with the central Government than the other provinces.