Better off alone
Monday, 11 July 2005
David Warren
Quebec is unlike Slovakia, both in itself, and in relation to Canada. That is, compared with the Slovak relation to the former Czechoslovakia (if the reader will endure a comparison of two comparisons). There would be important geographical, linguistic, cultural, demographic, religious, historical and other distinctions to be made between Quebec and Slovakia, had we world enough and time. But this is journalism, not a yawning doctoral thesis.
And there is a raw similarity between the two cases. The Slovak region was--through the decades when Czechoslovakia was free of Austro-Hungarian, then Nazi, then Communist rule--the backwater. The relation between Prague and Bratislava was not unlike the relation between Ottawa and Quebec City. The Slovaks whined a lot, and received plenty of subsidies in return. They sent politicians to Prague who would implicitly threaten to separate if they didn't get their way.
And on the Czech side, it became impossible to discuss, let alone advance, any national issue, without being drawn into another "crisis of national unity." Leading Czech politicians wanted to trash the legacy of socialism and state enterprise, slash taxes, get on with the Thatcher revolution. They couldn't get anywhere. Anything they tried might interfere with the Slovaks' subsidies, and the Slovaks' "special identity." The Czech dog agreed to be wagged by the Slovak tail, because the Czechs could imagine nothing worse than having their nation break up.
There was a nice guy, Vaclav Havel, who had gone from jailbird to president, as the Soviet empire collapsed. He was trying to hold Czechoslovakia together. Vladimir Meciar was the nasty guy, the Slovak prime minister, whose presence in national politics was like that of the Bloc Québécois. By 1992, Meciar had forced the Czechs to accept a kind of "distinct society" arrangement. That wasn't good enough, and in 1993 the "Velvet Revolution" became the Velvet Divorce.
The Czechs had always secretly, or openly, looked down on the Slovaks. It wasn't just their language, it was their whole way of being. They just weren't sufficiently urbane and western. A former independent Slovakia had been created by the Nazis, and run by collaborators. More recently, ex-Communists were doing a better job of retrieving their interests in the Slovak domains. Meciar had appealed to all the dark interests, in advancing his sovereigntist program. It was assumed he would run Slovakia as a one-party state, though he did promise elections.
And won them, though not by so big a margin as everyone had expected. He stumbled on through four years, as the poster boy for Central European corruption, demagoguery, thuggishness, et cetera. He moved Slovakia further away from the West. The country became known to the U.S. State Department as the "black hole in Europe." Finally, it began to dissolve in a constitutional crisis.
"Ha!" was the reaction of the Czechs. It was just what they expected of an independent Slovakia.
But then, the Slovaks pulled themselves together. In late 1998, Meciar started going down, first to chaotic parliamentary factions, then to defeat by Rudolf Schuster, who emerged from the jumble of a coalition with his promise to "clean this place up."
By the year 2000, Slovakia was in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, applying to join Europe and NATO, and having its own belated Thatcher Revolution. After just five years, the Slovaks are flourishing, while the Czechs are floundering. In the blink of an eye, independent Slovakia has become one of Europe's economic and political success stories. All they needed was to get rid of the idiots who had led them through the independence struggle.
That may well be the secret for an independent Quebec: to get rid of the Parti and Bloc Québécois, after they in turn have severed the province from the perpetual handout machinery in Ottawa, with its debilitating effects. Imagine what Quebecers might do once they've weaned themselves.
And then, imagine what Alberta could do. For Alberta isn't even sucking in the first place; it is being perpetually milked. It has nothing to lose whatever. As an Ontarian, for the life of me, I can't see why Alberta sticks around.
Monday, 11 July 2005
David Warren
Quebec is unlike Slovakia, both in itself, and in relation to Canada. That is, compared with the Slovak relation to the former Czechoslovakia (if the reader will endure a comparison of two comparisons). There would be important geographical, linguistic, cultural, demographic, religious, historical and other distinctions to be made between Quebec and Slovakia, had we world enough and time. But this is journalism, not a yawning doctoral thesis.
And there is a raw similarity between the two cases. The Slovak region was--through the decades when Czechoslovakia was free of Austro-Hungarian, then Nazi, then Communist rule--the backwater. The relation between Prague and Bratislava was not unlike the relation between Ottawa and Quebec City. The Slovaks whined a lot, and received plenty of subsidies in return. They sent politicians to Prague who would implicitly threaten to separate if they didn't get their way.
And on the Czech side, it became impossible to discuss, let alone advance, any national issue, without being drawn into another "crisis of national unity." Leading Czech politicians wanted to trash the legacy of socialism and state enterprise, slash taxes, get on with the Thatcher revolution. They couldn't get anywhere. Anything they tried might interfere with the Slovaks' subsidies, and the Slovaks' "special identity." The Czech dog agreed to be wagged by the Slovak tail, because the Czechs could imagine nothing worse than having their nation break up.
There was a nice guy, Vaclav Havel, who had gone from jailbird to president, as the Soviet empire collapsed. He was trying to hold Czechoslovakia together. Vladimir Meciar was the nasty guy, the Slovak prime minister, whose presence in national politics was like that of the Bloc Québécois. By 1992, Meciar had forced the Czechs to accept a kind of "distinct society" arrangement. That wasn't good enough, and in 1993 the "Velvet Revolution" became the Velvet Divorce.
The Czechs had always secretly, or openly, looked down on the Slovaks. It wasn't just their language, it was their whole way of being. They just weren't sufficiently urbane and western. A former independent Slovakia had been created by the Nazis, and run by collaborators. More recently, ex-Communists were doing a better job of retrieving their interests in the Slovak domains. Meciar had appealed to all the dark interests, in advancing his sovereigntist program. It was assumed he would run Slovakia as a one-party state, though he did promise elections.
And won them, though not by so big a margin as everyone had expected. He stumbled on through four years, as the poster boy for Central European corruption, demagoguery, thuggishness, et cetera. He moved Slovakia further away from the West. The country became known to the U.S. State Department as the "black hole in Europe." Finally, it began to dissolve in a constitutional crisis.
"Ha!" was the reaction of the Czechs. It was just what they expected of an independent Slovakia.
But then, the Slovaks pulled themselves together. In late 1998, Meciar started going down, first to chaotic parliamentary factions, then to defeat by Rudolf Schuster, who emerged from the jumble of a coalition with his promise to "clean this place up."
By the year 2000, Slovakia was in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, applying to join Europe and NATO, and having its own belated Thatcher Revolution. After just five years, the Slovaks are flourishing, while the Czechs are floundering. In the blink of an eye, independent Slovakia has become one of Europe's economic and political success stories. All they needed was to get rid of the idiots who had led them through the independence struggle.
That may well be the secret for an independent Quebec: to get rid of the Parti and Bloc Québécois, after they in turn have severed the province from the perpetual handout machinery in Ottawa, with its debilitating effects. Imagine what Quebecers might do once they've weaned themselves.
And then, imagine what Alberta could do. For Alberta isn't even sucking in the first place; it is being perpetually milked. It has nothing to lose whatever. As an Ontarian, for the life of me, I can't see why Alberta sticks around.
Comment