This echoes criticism heard during the COVID-19 crisis, as citizens and activists took to social media to slam opposition parties for not attacking the government more harshly in the early days for its handling of the pandemic.
This would be one of the first studies to show, after analyzing hundreds of interventions with quantitative and qualitative data, that the opposition had to change strategy.
The researchers conclude that the opposition parties’ ability to monitor government actions has clearly been undermined.
Both the Liberal Party (PLQ), Québec solidaire (QS) and the Parti Québécois (PQ) have therefore refrained from personal criticism and attacks and have opted for the formulation of proposals, according to the published in the Journal of Legislative Studies Article in English.
Liberal Dominique Anglade has been the leader of the official opposition for much of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Photo: The Canadian Press / Jacques Boissinot
They delivered up to seven times more suggestion interventions than critical interventions compared to pre-pandemic levels.
This shift from a confrontational antagonism to a propositional approach was quite spectacular, the authors believe.
In interviews conducted by the researchers, elected officials from these parties confided that voters did not accept the criticisms they leveled at the government and therefore had to change their tone.
We have to learn to moderate what we say, but also the importance of what we say […] All questions can be asked, but there is a way and a preferred tone, admitted one of the opposition MPs interviewed by the researchers. All elected officials were interviewed on condition of anonymity.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, one of the study’s authors, Jeanne Milot-Poulin, confirmed that the work of opposition elected officials during the pandemic was much more complicated, according to the testimonies collected.
“They were aware of this danger. People would rather see the political class united in this crisis than divided by strife. [Les partis d’opposition] have not forgotten their role as a counterforce, but they have played in a different, more conscious way, so as not to directly attack the dynamic of solidarity that existed around François Legault. »
— A quote from Jeanne Milot-Poulin
Were the oppositions silenced?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the opposition has been muzzled according to our article, but it is certain that the pandemic has made work very complicated, nuanced Ms Milot-Poulin.
In Québec, in a crisis situation, we tend to gather in society and therefore show solidarity with our prime minister, an elected official said in an interview with the researchers.
The first wave was truly a state of grace in Quebec; One MP commented that everyone was united.
Even citizens who are normally more inclined to support one of the opposition parties have become more aware of the government’s message and therefore less receptive to the opposition, we read.
Quebec Premier François Legault speaks during a press conference on the pandemic in February 2022.
Photo: The Canadian Press / Jacques Boissinot
In the first wave of the pandemic, scientists observed a clear shift in the opposition’s communication strategies, they say. Elected representatives of the opposition generally leaned towards a proposal-based approach rather than frontal criticism of the government’s actions.
For example, during the pandemic, the proportion of interventions based on suggestions compared to the number of critical interventions has increased almost sevenfold.
Ms. Milot-Poulin evokes a rallying effect, as in times of international crisis or war, but this time in times of a pandemic.
“The population will often have a reflex of solidarity towards the executive, towards the government. In such a context, an opposition party needs to be a bit more cautious [ne] not to criticize the government too directly, because that could backfire in terms of the solidarity reflex of the citizens. »
— A quote from Jeanne Milot-Poulin
One of the elected officials admitted that the opposition’s role was thankless: it was accused of criticizing the government or accused of not criticizing it enough.
The scope for action was even more limited in this particular crisis due to the virulence of the conspiratorial discourse. In fact, the criticism expressed should not be associated with conspiracy criticism, notes another parliamentarian interviewed.
The government communication strategy was necessary; It was up to us to adapt, acknowledges one elected official. They needed to understand that we were in a time of crisis and that people needed reassurance.
The researchers conclude that the opposition parties’ ability to oversee government action and contribute to the political process has clearly been undermined by the sudden intolerance of criticism at the start of the pandemic and by the increasing centralization of decision-making.
personal attacks
In addition, scholars have examined another question: have opposition parties moved away from personal attacks on ministers or the government in favor of more public order-oriented interventions?
Thus, the researchers found that there was no significant difference in the National Assembly between before and during the pandemic. But in the media, the speakers gave the gas pedal soft during the first wave: their arrows aimed less at the ministers.
Finally, one of the researchers’ hypotheses did not come true. They examined whether the pandemic affected party strategies differently depending on whether they were meddling in the media or more likely in the National Assembly, but the data did not lead them to that conclusion.
Quebec Premier François Legault
Photo: Radio Canada / Ivanoh Demers
Between January 2019 and December 2020, no fewer than 657 parliamentary interventions, either declarations or questions, and 728 interventions in the media were analysed. This allowed comparison to a pre-pandemic sample from January 2019 to March 2020.
Of the 657 operations carried out, 163 (24.8%) took place after the state of emergency was declared.
Likewise, of the 728 media interventions, 303 (41.6%) were made after the state of emergency came into force.
The interventions selected were those of spokespersons for education, health and public safety, which were most in demand during the pandemic.