Rhetoric is the art of convincing an audience. Rhetoricians use language to make their points and to lead their audience to the conclusions they want them to reach with their logic. Opinion leaders have mastered the art of rhetoric for they could not have reached their influential positions had they not been able to instil trust and confidence in their audience in the way they make their points.

Think about your mechanic. If he usually does a good job repairing your car, you trust him and assume that whatever work he suggests to you in the future will be sensible. He is aware of your trust and of what you assume about his probity, and he is in the position to take advantage of your confidence. Who knows if you really need to change that radiator? Since you trust your mechanic, you will probably not go to the trouble of shopping around to see if someone else would give you different advice. All your favourite mechanic has to do if he wants to take advantage of your trust is to be careful and not suggest anything so silly as to make you suspect his honesty.

The same thing is true with opinion leaders. Opinion leaders who wish to use their influential positions to spread a particular ideology have to master basic rhetorical techniques and learn how to disguise their propaganda in such a way as to not arouse suspicion in their audience. They know that once their audience trusts them, they can take advantage of this confidence and, if they are willing to make a little effort, disseminate their propaganda without appearing to be doing so. All they need to do is to be careful not to promote their ideology too strongly, or too directly.

The case of Québec

Advocating directly for the separation of Québec from Canada would be received rather coldly by the public in la belle province these days, since most Quebecers wish their politicians could talk about important things, such as health care, or the struggling economy, instead of la question nationale. The Québec public does not want to hear about separation, especially not about another referendum, and this widely shared exasperation forces opinion leaders writing in Le Devoir – the most overtly sovereignist newspaper in Québec – to promote and advocate for their favourite ideology in an indirect, convoluted manner.

An example of how skilfully opinion leaders in Québec hide their separatist ideology occurred last year when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, should the Parti Québécois win a referendum in the future, it would be unconstitutional for the Québec National Assembly to declare independence unilaterally. Opinion leaders writing in Le Devoir reacted to the Court’s ruling by arguing that a democratic question such as the right of Quebecers to decide their future by themselves should be resolved by the people of Québec, not by nine unelected, federally-appointed judges.

Are rhetorical techniques common-place in Le Devoir editorials, or do they emerge only in issues of Québec separatism? To answer this question we conducted a content analysis of 14 Le Devoir editorials and opinion pieces which were published in January to February and August to September of 1998. The first period corresponds to the hearing of the Secession of Québec case by the Supreme Court of Canada; and the second period to the publication of the actual the judgement by the Court. These were compared with an editorial that did not discuss Québec sovereignty.

The statistical findings show that the rhetorical techniques in the editorials and op-ed pieces in Le Devoir on the Supreme Court decision are strikingly different from those used in the newspaper articles that had nothing to do with the issue of separation.1 The Supreme Court decision articles in Le Devoir were loaded with passive phrases. The style was impersonal, suggesting that the author was speaking for all of society. The articles lacked nuance and tended to see everyone in the separatist debate as either friends or enemies.

The heavy use of these rhetorical techniques suggests that Le Devoir wanted to spread separatist propaganda despite readers’ reluctance to hear about separation.

Rhetorical techniques

Why does Le Devoir apparently feel that these techniques are an effective way of slipping the separatist message across? Consider impersonal and passive formulations. In an impersonal phrase, instead of using a simple verb, the writer chooses a combination of a noun and a verb, as in “make a decision” instead of “decide,” or “provide with our assistance” instead of “help.” Similarly, in passive sentences we read “the position held by the federal government,” or “the questions that were asked of the Court.” The technique of using impersonal and passive formulations instead of simple verbs allows the author to shift readers’ attention from the subject to the process, thereby obscuring the actor’s role. For instance, saying that “it is legitimate to resist” sounds less antagonistic than affirming that “we will resist.” In this example, the author distances himself from the action of resistance. He wants to be considered more as a neutral observer than as a militant calling for citizens to storm the barricades. Distancing oneself from a questionable endeavour is also a useful way of preserving the reputation of one who wants to appear calm and reasonable.

Vague comparisons are another of Le Devoir’s rhetorical techniques. Comparisons stir a sense of urgency in readers’ minds. The situation is always “more critical,” and the federalists are always “more committed” to striking down Quebecers’ aspirations. The message riding in the wake of these comparisons is that Quebecers, if they want to “survive as a nation,” have to do something now (although the writers seldom explain what the something in question might be). If Quebecers do nothing, the federalists will eventually succeed at bringing Québec down to the unenviable status of une province comme les autres (a province no more important than the others).

Another significant rhetorical technique is dualism of discourse. Political texts in Le Devoir give the reader the feeling of watching an old western where the characters wear either a black hat or a white hat, and where figuring out who the good guys are does not stress viewers’ capacities for nuance. Black hats versus white hats. Federalists versus true Quebecers. Jean Chrétien versus Lucien Bouchard. In addition to splitting the firmament into two spheres, the ideological language relies heavily on military terms. There is always a “strategy” for every action, and we must all be ready to “fight the enemy.” For example, expressions like “parcours du combattant” (the warrior’s journey), or “the federal power,” or “people’s prison” are quite common in Le Devoir articles.

A further important rhetorical technique that Le Devoir uses is “manicheism.” Manicheism introduces in the readers’ mind the idea of ineluctability, of something impossible to escape or to change. There is nothing we can expect from federalists in Ottawa, because they belong to the “wrong group.”

The metaphor of the organism also refers to the idea of ineluctability, though in a more subtle way. The metaphor of the organism means that people cannot renounce, nor can they fight their own nature, their true essence. The same way a tree has to grow upward from the ground, Quebecers have to work toward achieving sovereignty. We hear about the “birth of the sovereignist movement,” or about the movement’s “origins.” Québec’s destiny, or raison d’être, is to become a country, and there is nothing much anybody can do about that. Using the metaphor of the organism can be an efficient way to remind Quebecers that their nature compels them to strive for, or at least not to resist, Québec’s sovereignty.

The final trick in the rhetorical bag that editorialists and opinion leaders reach for is to paint their opponents as speaking with forked tongues and wearing masks of deception. Referring to the masks opponents are said to be constantly wearing is a rhetorical technique that opinion leaders use to remind their readers that trusting federalists is pointless. For what can readers do to protect themselves against federalists’ “plots and manoeuvres,” now that we know what they did in 1982, during the memorable “night of the long knives?” One should expect nothing good from Ottawa. Federalists want to put Québec in its place once and for all, and that’s that. A sentence like the following, written by political activist Yves Michaud, will illustrate my point. Mr. Michaud hopes that Supreme Court justices will be able to “déjouer les calculs mesquins du sinistre plan B des libéraux fédéraux … dont le lourd passé n’est qu’un florilège de méchancetés à l’endroit du peuple québécois” (outsmart the mean calculations of the Liberals’ sinister Plan B, those Liberals whose leaden past is nothing but an anthology of malicious actions directed against the people of Québec.) Spreading separatist propanganda despite the exasperation of the public suggests that opinion leaders advocating for Québec’s sovereignty are still actively trying to push their ideology forward.

The final effect

The ability with which writers use rhetorical techniques to indirectly advocate for Québec’s separation shows that the writers are concerned with not alienating the public to “la cause.” Instead of directly calling for Québec to separate from Canada, separatists emphasize the fact that Québec is in a hopeless position, that nothing much can be expected from the rest of the country, and that the only possible way for Quebecers and Canadians to stop fighting over constitutional matters would be for Quebecers to vote YES in the next referendum. Separatist leaders are trying to build a momentum, they are trying to re-create the same kind of public resentment against the rest of Canada as was prevalent in 1995 after the successive failures of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord, and which came very close to handing a new country to the Parti Québécois. Separatist leaders are trying to accomplish this without anyone knowing. George Orwell would be impressed with their techniques.

[First published in Fraser Forum]