The Quebec student
strike has made evident the underpinning crisis of intergenerational inequality that characterizes the contemporary Canadian economic paradigm. Concerning this tension, the media
too often and largely inaccurately invokes ideas of entitlement. (Great response to said claims here.) To this I say:
that by definition the nature of a right is such that no shame can be associated
with its demands. If we are a society who values the equality of opportunity,
we need to diligently re-orient our political and economic priorities toward a
model of robust public service that is effectively matches talent to
appropriate work. Quebec students have a reasonable request: to live in a
society organized by merit rather than wealth, where talent is the only barrier
to success.
Among the lessons
we need to take from the so-called “Maple Spring” is that intergenerational
inequality needs to be bridged as to craft a politic entrenched in respect and
justice. One of the fundamental disconnects between youth and older generations
are that there is no onus on the provincial governments to empower youth
political participation.
So long as youth are
disenfranchised by their inability to vote, self-serving politics will continue
to repress youth voter turnout and create campaigns that will be palatable to
the largest voting blocks. Once majority is attained (or consent is
manufactured if you prefer more jaded language) politicians get to tune
out the public for 4 years and govern as they see fit.
There is a way out
of the seemingly perpetual dance between ignorance and apathy. Much like the
mantra of the striking students, accessible education is the answer. In fact, it’s
why I believe that Quebec activism is more spirited and accepted than in the
rest of Canada. That Quebec students are privy to CEGEP and lower university
fees compared with other Canadian provinces; this has meant that a larger
portion of their population has become capable of articulately engaging
conversations of economic and social priority.
We have silenced
the voices of millions of Canadians, and feigned ignorance of why youth don’t
vote. If the voting age in Canada was lowered to 16 year of age, school-aged children
would become a pocket of votes for prospective governing parties and
candidates. New initiatives to engage youth in political conversations would penetrate
school programming, and the general political knowledge of the population would
greatly increase. Ideally, our nation should be producing, rather than just workers,
high school graduates who are capable of critically evaluating public
decisions.
Largely, activism
is a project in consensus building. Habermas’ famous sociological inquiry into
the public sphere noted that the public sphere was in perpetual flux balancing
of the number or contributors to and the quality of public discourse. This realization foregrounded the nefarious intent
motivating voter suppression; the notion that power is better than justice
plagues every inch of Canadian politics. No better example of this exists than the acceptance/encouragement of youth voter apathy.
Education in Quebec is more understood as a right than anywhere else in Canada. Students there are not burdened with tuition fees so high as to create the belief that the service they are buying is too valuable to boycott class in the name of equal opportunity.
I am truly inspired
by what the Quebec student strike has accomplished. The Maple Spring is everything
Occupy Wall Street wasn't. They have democratically elected (and effective)
leadership, they have reasonable demands, and they have the moral high ground.
If the Canadian
voting age was 16, the Maple Spring would have seeded outside Quebec much more
effectively.
