Terrorism & the Quiet Revolution

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

Jeff Merrell

The country by which I am most intrigued is, believe it or not, Canada.  Canada is a diverse country with a unique bilingual[1] political[2] environment.  Many Canadians view the province of Québec as the black sheep of the country, largely because of its French language and culture.  Since 1960, Québec’s attempts at secession and independence have been described as a movement,[3] terrorism,[4] and even a revolution![5]  But, as this blog leads me to question, were these acts of political violence truly characteristic of terrorism or a revolution?  Do the definitions provided in the textbook for these acts suffice?  Below is an analysis of each type mentioned in reference to Québec’s independence movement.

Terrorism: Front de libération du Québec

From approximately 1963-1970, the Front de liberation du Québec (Québec Liberation Front) was a key non-state actor in the pursuit of Québec sovereignty, being accused of numerous independence-related acts of terrorism.  The headliner of these attacks, most believe, was an event referred to as the October Crisis.  The FLQ kidnapped a British Trade Commissioner and Québec’s Minister of Labour just five days later.  The Québec official was executed and the FLQ threatened a similar result with the British official if certain demands were not met.  The Canadian federal government got more involved and, eventually, the demands were met.

The textbook’s definition of terrorism is “threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, directed particularly against civilian targets.”[6]  Do the actions of the FLQ match that definition?  For the most part, yes.  The FLQ was a non-state actor that used violence for political purposes (seeking independence).  Where I may disagree, however, is that violence must target civilians in order to be terrorism.  Granted, some of the FLQ’s activities targeted civilians, but the headlining violence was towards political officials – not civilians.  Another gap in the textbook’s definition of violence is that it only specifies the human victims and not the property involved.  Had the FLQ bombed an empty government building with no human casualties at all, wouldn’t it still be considered terrorism?  I believe that 9/11 attests that yes, attack on property is terrorism.

Based on the FLQ incident, as well as other attacks by non-state actors with which I am familiar, I am more comfortable defining terrorism as “threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, regardless of the target (civilian, government official, property, etc.).”

Revolution: Révolution tranquille

The period in which the terrorist attacks mentioned above took place is generally referred to as the Révolution tranquille, or the Quiet Revolution.  It was a period of political upheaval, led by the secularization and liberalization of the provincial government.  Religious oppression and language-based economic discrimination ceased while provincial patriotism/nationalism increased.  There was some violence throughout the period but, for the most part, the revolution took place without a substantial amount of violence.  That is why it is known as the Quiet Revolution.

The textbook’s definition of revolution is “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change.”[7]  At face value, does the Quiet Revolution fit in this definition?  No, it does not.  First of all, it would be a big stretch to refer to it as an armed conflict; secondly, it was not a matter of control of the state, but rather of the province.  The insurgents wanted to gain control of the province from the state in order to become its own state. 

If the Quiet Revolution does not fit into the definition of a revolution, why is it called a revolution at all?  I believe that most refer to this period in Québec’s history as a revolution because it ultimately led to relative wholesale political change.  While Québec remained a part of Canada and cannot claim ultimate authority over its territory, the federal government has taken action since then to better appease Québec’s desire for independence.  As recently as 2006, a resolution proposed by Steven Harper (Canadian Prime Minister) recognized Québec as a “nation within a united Canada.”[8]

Based on this period of time in Québec, I would propose to modify the textbook’s definition of revolution to state “a conflict (violent or otherwise) between insurgents and the incumbent government in which both parties claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of that territory’s population; the conflict ultimately results in increased political power for the insurgents and/or their constituency and wholesale political change.”

---

[1] "History of Bilingualism in Canada." Canadian Heritage. Government of Canada, 22 2008. Web. 8 Nov 2012. http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/lo-ol/bllng/hist-eng.cfm.

[2] Shively, W. Phillips. Power & Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. 13. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 233. Print.

[3] "Parti Québécois." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/444934/Parti-Québecois.

[4] "FLQ Crisis." Canadian Soldiers. N.p.. Web. 7 Nov 2012. http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/history/domesticmissions/flqcrisis.htm.

[5] Belanger, Claude. "The Quiet Revolution." Québec History. Marianopolis College, 23 2000. Web. 7 Nov 2012. http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/Québechistory/events/quiet.htm.

[6] Samuels, David. Comparative Politics. Pearson Education, Inc., 2013. 276. Print.

[7] Samuels, David. Comparative Politics. Pearson Education, Inc., 2013. 269. Print.

[8] “House passes motion recognizing Québécois as nation,” CBC News, November 27, 2006, accessed April 6, 2011, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/11/27/nation-vote.html.  See also David R. Cameron and Jacqueline D. Krikorian, “Recognizing Québec in the Constitution of Canada: Using the Bilateral Constitutional Amendment Process,” University of Toronto Law Journal 58 (2008): 395.