The tribunicial function and the Créditiste group in the Quebec National Assembly, 1970–3

An analysis of the attitudes and behaviour of the Créditiste group since its first appearance in Quebec's National Assembly (1970–3) has two interesting aspects. First, it clarifies the Créditiste phenomenon, supporting the conclusions arrived at in a study conducted by Vera Murray. This study held that the RCQ was distinguished by the exercise of a specific function, namely, the defence and representation of the interests of underprivileged social classes. This is a function which Georges Lavau has described as tribunicial. We intend to show that the Créditiste members, in spite of the internal splits in the party during the leadership of Camil Samson and Armand Bois, have clearly fulfilled a protective function on behalf of “proletarian social elements” in the political system.

The election of Yvon Dupuis to head the party in February 1973 inaugurated the progressive abandonment of this specific role, which had characterized the RCQ until then on Quebec's political chessboard, in favour of the function of providing governmental alternatives. Second, this study enables us to clarify and to distinguish between certain points in regard to the tribunicial function and the function of providing alternatives, used by Georges Lavau. In our opinion, the case of the RCQ is a much purer illustration of the tribunicial function than is the case of the PCF.

In brief, the essence of the tribunicial function is the use of social criticism – not political criticism – based on the defence of underprivileged classes and revolving around the detailed denunciation of the political establishment. The tribunicial function also displays very little interest in the discussion or elaboration of a program of wholesale reform.

Political theorists have long argued that political participation has been a minimal requirement of democratic political systems. More recently, social scientists have turned their attention to understanding the factors that impede or promote participation. This paper examines several such hypotheses which lie within the framework of personality and social-psychological theory. Briefly stated, this author's contention is that: (1) each individual has a need to have sufficient control over relevant aspects of his life-space, which, under specified conditions, includes the political system; (2) the attempt to satisfy this need in the social world generates basic assumptive beliefs about personal control; and (3) these beliefs have important implications for political participation and the support of regimes.

To examine these contentions more fully, we first must consider the concept of political efficacy, especially as it relates to the motivation to participate in political life. It will then be possible to present a theory that links feelings of personal control in the political arena with more basic psychological needs that help to organize the personality system. Finally, we will present some exploratory data on the relation between beliefs in personal control and political participation. While these data do not directly contradict previous empirical studies, they do suggest the possibility that a substantial reorganization of the way in which political efficacy is conceptualized may be in order.

The purpose of this note is to examine the voting behaviour of Edmonton city councillors from 1966 through 1972 in order to determine whether members who campaign together on local slates and parties vote together on council. In short, are local electoral slates and parties able to function as cohesive legislative organizations?

Edmonton's form of government is similar to the governmental structure in the majority of Canadian cities in that it does not lend itself to “responsible government.” The city operated under an at-large electoral system for councillors until 1968 when a plebiscite forced the council to adopt a ward system. With a council reluctant to give up the advantages of an at-large system, four multimember strip wards of equal size were created. By establishing four wards completely heterogeneous in terms of socioeconomic composition, the council in effect provided four at-large elections at every municipal election.

How much effort by politicians and public administrators is needed to create awareness of proposed new policies or policy changes? Is broad newspaper coverage of proposed legislation and the high visibility of a minister enough to spread a significant amount of information? This note reports a study of the effectiveness of communication by one federal department, especially of a significant bill proposed by it.

The establishment of well-accepted and useful public policy depends on an adequate flow of information. A careful assessment of the wants and needs of society is required. The best policies are established when interested parties exchange opinions and ideas. If adequate communication about proposed plans does not occur, this exchange cannot take place. Perhaps policy-makers too readily assume that communication with other significant persons is occurring.

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the degree of knowledge evinced by a group which would be significantly affected by an apparently widely publicized piece of proposed federal legislation relating to business activity. The amount of knowledge demonstrated by the group is one indication of the effectiveness of the communication efforts of the minister and the department.

In autumn 1971 and early January 1972, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was perhaps more visible than at any other time in its history. The minister, Ronald Basford, had spent several years building and strengthening the department, as well as actively informing the public of a highly intensified orientation towards consumer protection and scrutiny of business activities.

I should like to comment on the fine article, “Party Loyalty and Electoral Volatility: A Study of the Canadian Party System,” by Paul M. Sniderman, H.D. Forbes, and Ian Melzer in the June 1974 (vii, no. 2) issue of this journal. This article should be a major corrective in the study of Canadian political parties. In addition, the authors provide a number of useful insights which should fruitfully guide future research on parties.

In the beginning of their article they point out that there is a “consensus among students of Canadian politics on the functions of parties and the nature of voting in Canada,” which consensus they call “the textbook theory of party politics.” Among the elements of this theory, according to the authors, is the interpretation that both major, old-line Canadian parties, the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, are brokerage parties, and are, therefore, indistinguishable. Although the authors present evidence that calls into serious question other aspects of the “textbook theory,” such as the supposed lack of validity of the concept of party identification in Canada and the purported high level of electoral volatility of the Canadian voter compared to the British and American voter, the authors at the end of their article still accept important elements of the “textbook theory.” Thus, on page 286 they incorporate into their conclusion the idea that “it is surely true… that the major parties advance very similar platforms and share the same overall economic ideology.”

I was disturbed, and I understand my distress was shared by many others, to see the pages of such a respected scholarly periodical as the Canadian Journal of Political Science being so badly misused by a political bureaucrat for partisan purposes. I refer to the review of my book Nationalism, Communism, and Canadian Labour by Terence Morley, a longtime functionary of the New Democratic party, and now a graduate student at Queen's University.

Because I was critical of some of the activities of the CCF in the 1940s, made some kind remarks about the Communist party, and questioned some of the policies of international unions, Morley labels my book a “Waffle-inspired tract.” What utter nonsense! I am not a member nor even a supporter of the Waffle, as should be readily apparent to any intelligent reader of the book. Indeed, if Morley had done any reading over the past year since the book appeared he would have noted that in their reviews and speeches, Waffle leaders were critical of the book's implications – and rightly so given their ideology. But, quite clearly, to the Terence Morleys of Canada, to be even mildly critical of the ccf, immediately marks one as an enemy – as a member of the “Waffle” – just as critics in past years were denounced as “Communists.”

Although he is clearly unaware of the fact, I am, and have been for as long as I remember, a supporter of Mr Morley's own party.