From: buchignani@hg.uleth.ca
Subject: Re: Death of Canada - One American's Opinion
Reply-To: buchignani@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:31:58 GMT

rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe), Message-ID: <sPNuVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>,
notes: 
 
>     Since there's been a lot of discussion on this topic lately, I'd
>thought I'd add my two cents worth.  It is only my opinion; based upon my
>schooling in political science, the on-going discussion, and readings
>from "Canadian Politics in the 1980's" ed. Whittington and williams.  So
>it may or may not be worth a lot, but who knows it may generate some
>fruitful discussion.
>
>     The most direct cause of Canada's problems today can be traced to a
>distinct lack of national identity, and that in turn can be traced to the
>decentralization that has occurred over the last few decades.  In some
>ways Canada today resembles the U.S. during the period of the Articles of
>Confederation.  It is a loose union of provinces which are more concerned
>with provincial concerns than any sort of national solution.  In effect,
>the representatives to the federal goverment have become ambassadors and
>the provincial delegations have become embassies.
>
>     The main question that continues to come up is how to go about
>arriving at a statement of national identity and purpose that won't
>offend anyone.  This is *never* going to happen.  No matter what happens,
>someone will be offended.  But that is the heart of democracy.  The
>purpose of a central government is to review those competing demands and
>arrive at a solution that is the most equitable to all.  But in Canada
>today, equitable has come to mean that each regional bloc has to gain
>more than the others or there is no equity.  Along with this is a
>distrust of the federal government which suggests that each region or
>province is more capable of deciding what is in its best interests than
>Ottawa, while showing little concern as to whether those interests are
>detrimental to the nation as a whole.
>
>     This cannot continue if Canada is to maintain any sort of national
>cohesiveness.  A decision on what constitutes the Canadian national
>identity and social and political culture has to be made, and that
>decision must be implemented.  The other alternative is the Balkanization
>of the nation, with all the attendent problems that will come with it.
>
>     To a certain extent that has already begun.  The west demands
>control of decisions regarding its natural resources; Quebec demands
>control of virtually everything.  Quebec and Ontario demand that they be
>the first among equals in political matters.  It can't continue, folks,
>if you think the country is worth saving.  There has to be some sort of
>consensis regarding your national identity, and it has to be allowed to
>take hold.  If Quebec decides to leave, so be it.  Within a decade it
>will be so thoroughly dominated by the U.S. that it will have no desire
>to maintain an independent stance; or if it does, it will give up
>everything it fought so hard to attain.
>
>     One of the main battles fought by this country under the Articles of
>Confederation dealt with states staking claims to large areas of the
>"west", as it existed in those days.  But one by one they agreed to drop
>those claims and settle into established borders.  In the same way,
>Canada's provinces must agree to compromise in order to form a stronger
>union.  If that is not done, the country will wind up fragmented, and
>complete and final domination by the U.S. will occur.
>
>     It's up to you; there's not a lot we down here can do about it
>except watch as you tear yourselves apart.  Either get with the program
>and discover why you care about your country as a whole, or it will
>disintegrate from under you.  And as far as I'm concerned, that would be
>a serious loss to the world.  You've got a damn fine country; stop the
>bickering and work to bring it together.
 
This response is well though out, as long as you by the unspoken
axioms about what a state 'ought' to be like, and as long as one
doesn't confuse ideological statements about state unity with
practical measure of how much unity there actually is around.
Clearly, this analysis is predicated on a highly idealized
analysis of the US as the paradigm model for a state. There are,
however, no strong reasons to take this as the ideal, certainly
not in a future where for many reasons state borders don't quite
mean the same things as before. No doubt, practical
implimentations of this vision of the state had considerable
utility when state elites needed the tools for mass mobilization
of effort and sentiment, as in times of war. But today many of
those 'functions' of a strongly centralized state (which of
course were 'functional' only to some of the state's citizens)
have been aprropriated by other institutions and processes. In
this light, perhaps Canada is, rather than being on the brink of
'disintegration,' in the vanguard of where at least rich states
are heading. Indeed, I just ran across an international
conference announcement (British assn of Cdn Studies?) indicating
that someone out there is thinking this way; it's theme: Canada
as the first postmodern state.
 
I might also add that symbolic unity and practical unity are
quite different things. I think that practical unity in Canada, as
expressed in political planning and consensus building, is
probably greater than it is in the US, all that centrist
symbolism in the latter notwithstanding.
 
    Norm Buchignani/University of Lethbridge/BUCHIGNANI@HG.ULETH.CA
"If we have been accustomed to deplore the spectacle...of a workman occupied
during his whole life in nothing else but the making of knife-handles or pins'
heads, we may find something quite as lamentable in the intellectual class, in
the exclusive employment of a human brain in resolving some equations, or in
classifying insects. [This] occasions a miserable indifference about the
general course of human affairs, as long as there are equations to solve and
pins to manufacture."                                      Auguste Comte