On Disqualifying Canadians Because They are Not Bilingual
What follows are a series of posts based on the media reaction to Mike Harris as a possible candidate -- their reaction, especially, on the bilingualism issue.
According to Andre Bachand, Stephane Dion of Quebec, and several political columnists, Mike Harris is unfit to become Prime Minister because he is a unilingual English speaker--he is not bilingual.
If 25-30% of Canadians are Francophone and 90% of them are bilingual, that leaves approximately 10% of that number of Francophone Canadians--that's 2 to 3 of every 100 Francophones--unfit to become Prime Minister for one reason; they are not bilingual.
If 70-75% of Canadians are Anglophones and 10% of them are bilingual, that leaves more than 60% of Anglophone Canadians--or 63 to 68 out of every 100 Anglophones--unsuitable to become Prime Minister for one reason; they are not bilingual.
If unilingual Francophones and unilingual Anglophones together comprise 65 - 71 out of every 100 Canadians -- then 65-71% of Canadian citizens are dismissed from Prime Ministerial leadership consideration SOLELY because they do not speak both languages before anything else is considered. This seems profoundly undemocratic to me. This is what translators are for, isn't it -- so that everyone may be served in his own language? Does this not include strong leadership candidates?
Surely, unilingual Canadians deserve as much consideration for leadership as bilingual Canadians -- all other qualifications being equal? This is a red herring to distract attention from the fact that bilingualism as a job requirement has served Francophones in Canada well -- though it has deprived Anglophone Canada of jobs--even consideration for jobs--in more and more spheres. This red herring is always dragged to the fore--especially by Liberals since so many Quebeckers are Liberals--for it has served Quebec and Liberals well. It is profoundly undemocratic in great swaths of Canada. We have had enough of bilingualism BEFORE all else!
Surely, there are other considerations more important in a leader than bilingualism? Decency? Honesty? Fairness? Steadfastness? Leadership ability? Knowledge of Canadians and what they want and need? Willingness to listen and consult? Willingness to take a stand -- to act when action is needed? Ability to articulate a vision for Canada and make this direction clear in talking to Canadians? Willingness to set aside personal goals for the good of Canada? The list could go on.
Demand for bilingualism as the sole quality that can allow dismissal of a quality candidate BEFORE any other consideration is akin to demanding that a leadership hopeful have charisma without character. It is one part of the whole, not the primary qualification to lead a country -- nor should it be the defining part!
This demand for and implementation of bilingualism in more and more spheres in Canada has served Francophones well for it has garnered all the best jobs for a far greater percentage of Francophones than for Anglophones. Living in English speaking North America, they have had to become bilingual. Is this a fair situation? NO! NO! NO!
According to all the nay-sayers (see one example below), bilingualism is primary; all other considerations are for naught. But, this is why we have translators so every Canadian--unilingual as well as bilingual--may participate in democracy in their own country. Why should a whole country choose its leader from such a small percentage of people simply because they are bilingual?
If the entry of former Ontario premier Mike Harris in the federal arena hinges on the probability that he will one day be prime minister, then he should decline the pressing overtures to run for the leadership of the future Conservative party and get on with his life.
[. . . .]
As for Klein, he has wisely written himself out of the equation. While the Alberta premier would likely sell as well as Harris in the deeply conservative pockets of Ontario, as a non-bilingual leader he would hit a solid Quebec glass ceiling.
A similar fate awaits Harris.
Ever since Quebecers have been on the federal ballot, Quebec has never given a leader from elsewhere in Canada the time of day. Even Joe Clark, whose federal-provincial outlook was more in sync with the province than that of his Liberal competitors, still got the cold shoulder.
Anyone who expects Quebec voters to make an exception for Harris, a premier who demonstrated less sensitivity to his province's role in the greater national picture than any of his modern-day predecessors, probably also believes in Santa Claus.
As for those who would simply write the province off and strive to win without it, let them be reminded that is the very circle the Reform party tried to square, at a time when feelings against Quebec elsewhere in the country ran a lot higher.
The first duty of a prime minister is the unity of the country. Imagine how Canada would have fared in the last two referendums if the prime minister of the day had had to defend it through a translator.
For years now, sovereignist strategists have openly prayed for the day when there no longer is a federal party led by a Quebec leader. But even they know that the advent of an English-only prime minister looks too good for their cause to come true.
Note this:
***Ever since Quebecers have been on the federal ballot, Quebec has never given a leader from elsewhere in Canada the time of day.***
