Will the CAQ outlive its founder?
It’s a question haunting the halls of the National Assembly: Can a political party survive the departure of its founder—especially when that founder is the premier? François Legault’s recent “departure” was enough to reignite the rumor mill and speculation about the end of an era. For Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ), the verdict is clear: the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) is inseparable from its leader. In his view, “the CAQ is, quite simply, François Legault’s creation.”
It’s a harsh assessment, but it sums up what many are thinking privately: Legault can leave the party, but the party cannot leave Legault. The former PQ member has built his entire career on a bold gamble—that of a “third way.” Neither a die-hard sovereignist nor a blind federalist. Not on the left, but not quite on the right either (more interventionist, in any case, than the Conservatives). This model triumphed in 2018, breaking forty years of alternating power between the Liberals and the PQ. But with the CAQ’s recent decline, PSPP sees it as proof that this formula always ends up failing.
An old Quebec habit: the fear of political bickering
Yet this desire to break free from the usual two-party contest is nothing new. Historian Éric Bédard reminds us that the third way “runs like a dotted line through our history.” Why? Because Quebecers, as a minority people, have a deep-seated aversion to division. We often tell ourselves that if we’re divided, we’re weak. So when tensions run too high, we seek compromise.
As early as the late 19th century, Honoré Mercier was already attempting to create a “National Party” to move beyond the conflict between Liberals and Conservatives. Maurice Duplessis drew inspiration from this for the Union nationale. Even more surprising: when it was founded in October 1968, even René Lévesque’s Parti Québécois presented itself as a third way, a middle ground between unbridled capitalism and hardline unionism. It was only with the Quiet Revolution that the debate became fixed along the sovereignist-federalist divide. Since then, others have tried to break this mold, such as the ADQ in 1994, which eventually merged with the CAQ in 2012.
The Electoral System and a Return to Reality
If these centrist coalitions emerge regularly, it’s also due to our electoral system. Martin Papillon, a professor at the University of Montreal, explains that our single-member, first-past-the-post system (like in the United States) pushes parties to cast a wide net to win. To grow, they must appeal to the center. But beware: according to the expert, “this is never sustainable.” Old divisions always end up resurfacing.
Is that what’s happening today? Not so fast. The political scientist qualifies this: the CAQ’s current unpopularity could simply be the natural wear and tear of being in power after two terms, rather than the death of the model. Moreover, while the PQ is climbing back up in the polls, its sovereignist stance hasn’t necessarily changed.
Still, for skeptics like former Senator André Pratte, this stance is an “illusion.” Speaking on ICI Première, he stated unequivocally: ultimately, there are only two options—to secede or not to secede. Former PQ minister Louise Beaudoin echoes this sentiment, arguing that while Quebecers may like the idea of not having to choose, sooner or later they will be “forced to make a choice.”
Is this model still relevant?
Not everyone is writing off the third way, however. Guy Laforest, who helped found the CAQ in 2011, still defends the relevance of this option. For this political scientist at Laval University, the refusal of “unconditional allegiance to Canada” while rejecting “independence at any cost” remains a valid position.
The “Third Way” in Quebec: A Political Stroke of Genius or an Inevitable Dead End?
This content was created with the help of AI.
