WHY CANADIAN UNITY MATTERS
AND WHY AMERICANS CARE:
DEMOCRATIC PLURALISM AT RISK,
by Charles F. Doran, Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2001
“If democratic pluralism fails in North America, where else can this grand experiment prevail? In the new millennium, the people of Canada can leave no greater gift to humanity than the knowledge, based on a history of shared political culture, that democratic pluralism works.” So writes Charles Doran, Andrew Mellon Professor of International Relations in the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC. It is not often that Canadians are told (particularly by Americans) that Canada matters. Even more rarely are we told that what matters about us is not our geography, our resources, or our “role” in the world, but who we are as a people, what we have achieved together, and how well we respond to the challenge of pluralism — in which Canada finds itself on the front lines of the democratic world.
Doran argues that while liberal democracy has reached new heights of sophistication in the industrialized world, “the larger national identity is under siege from a resurgence of cultural consciousness and a deepening of solidarity at the communal level. Liberal democracy, rightfully celebrating its protection of individual and minority rights, must suddenly accommodate long-standing or group concerns, understandable and legitimate, about preservation of culture, language, and tradition from diverse communities within the society. In democracies and non-democracies alike, the disparate interests within society are pulling the nation apart, claiming the right of self-determination and actively seeking autonomy or secession.” The only solution to this dilemma is democratic pluralism, which argues that “diverse communities in a liberal democracy can live in harmony with each other inside a single state, and, what is more, that in this condition of social and political interdependence the members of these communities can thrive spiritually, economically, linguistically, and intellectually.” Separation along ethno-linguistic lines is a statement that democratic pluralism has failed. “The state that breaks up according to cultural-linguistic difference will not only mortgage the capacity to protect the individual … but will also give rise to cultural-linguistic difference as the new standard upon which to base democratic decision. Democratic pluralism and government conducted solely by cultural-linguistic norm are, ultimately, incompatible.”
The stakes in this struggle for democratic pluralism are highest for North America, where Canada and the United States have been a “city on the hill”, an inspiration of freedom, prosperity, diversity, and tolerance for the world. Because Canada is more aggressively diverse than the United States, the threat to pluralism is also more acute in Canada. Thus Canada’s fate is crucial for Americans, not only in the obvious impact of a divided Canada on American prosperity and security, but in terms of its global interests as well. “If democratic pluralism continues to flourish in North America, Canada and the United States will remain truly a model for other countries to follow. But if secession occurs, democratic pluralism worldwide will suffer, for the model itself will have failed and democratic pluralism will be regarded as a ‘damaged good’ not worthy of consideration. Homogenization of culture within increasingly fragmented and increasingly isolated populations will become the norm for state organization.”
The centre of the book is the “Quebec question”. “English” Canada needs Quebec to fulfill Canada’s authenticity; Quebec needs “English” Canada to bring out its richest traditions and preserve it from inwardness. But feelings of historical subordination, loss of collective identity, anxiety over cultural survival, all fuel Quebec nationalism — though not necessarily separatism. Indeed, Doran argues, Quebec nationalism appears to be strongest when Quebec culture is least threatened; Quebec nationalists do not fear economic integration within North America; and there is a lively debate about whether Quebec nationalism is ethnic or civic (or both). There is plenty of scope for accommodation if moderation prevails on both sides, but this is made more difficult by the lack of any bottom line to Quebec nationalist demands, coupled with an increasing unwillingness of “English” Canada to make any concessions at all. If Quebec separated it would be economically weaker than as part of Canada, and the rest of Canada would unravel politically. Aboriginal peoples would have a greater challenge in reconciling their own issues of self-government with individual freedom and membership in a state. But the pieces would still have to live together, since Doran dismisses the prospect that the United States would absorb any of the remnants of a divided Canada. Thus, he argues, “[t]here will always be a Canada. The question is, what kind of Canada will it be?” A united Canada will only survive and prosper if it retains the qualities and governance that have ranked it as one of the most attractive countries in the world. Doran says the United States should make its preference for Canadian unity clear but it should take no part in the debate. It should show sympathetic patience, recognizing the stresses and strains this debate places on Canada, and it should be ready to deal with whatever results from the process.
From a Canadian point of view there are flaws in this book. Although it was published late in 2001, the discussion of the possibility of Quebec secession and its impact on English Canada seems anchored in the post-referendum period and does not appear to take sufficient account of the Supreme Court reference, the Clarity Act, and the decline in public support for sovereignty in Quebec. Thus, while the basic issues remain, the specific discussion seems dated. Doran refers, often with considerable insight, to the complexity of the rest of Canada, and he devotes some pages to analysing the centrifugal forces there, including federal-provincial strains and “western alienation”. But he is less strong on such issues as Aboriginal self-government, multiculturalism, the Charter of Rights, and the many / other elements of the witches’ brew of con- « stitutional negotiations in Canada. His asser- : tion that both Canada and the United States s have seen themselves as “cities on the hill” would be challenged by many Canadian his- ! torians. The book is somewhat repetitious and sometimes over-thorough.
These flaws do not detract from the impor- 1
tance of this book as a sympathetic, informed I and objective look at Canada, not only i through the prism of American values, but in the context of America’s interest in the survival of democratic institutions worldwide. It is a welcome offset to what Canadians often see as the one-way mirror of our relations with the United States. It is also an antidote to the tendency of some American commentators to prescribe what “Canada” ought to do, as though Canada were a monolith. In fact, we are also a complex country, product of a long evolution to democracy, balancing regional, communal, and political interests and needs, finding our way through the thickets and minefields of difficult choices, always against the background of shared values and long friendship with the United States. Canada, like any other country, needs informed outsiders to question, challenge, and, hopefully, to validate our vision of ourselves. We need to know that who we are, as well as what we do, has significance for the world. And other countries need informed interpreters of Canada who portray us in three dimensions and not as a political or geographic abstraction. This is a Serious book which deserves a wide audience in both countries, and elsewhere.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 19, No. 4 (2003) — Winter/Spring 2002/2003 // Hiver/Printemps 2002/2003, pp. 23–25. Read the rest of this issue →
