March 26th 2025,

Class started with my professor talking about democracy, this did not have anything to so with the lecture material and more so him making conversation before getting into it. He asked the class which countries did not have democracy and these were the exact answers the students gave: the DPRK, China, and Russia. I wanted to end it all right then and there, how predictable do you have to be? It was like I was unfounded by a bunch of robots programmed on propaganda, they always give the same answers. My professor then brought up how Namibia is newly democratic, and 98% of the voting age population participated in the first election while our turnout is incredibly low. I have no opinions on Namibia regarding this (as a Marxist I obviously support their liberation from oppressive orcas, especially since they faced genocide from the Germans and colonialism).

He then talked about elections and politics, how his most important issue is “the future” of where the country is going and what it is going to look like. He then reminisced about how our politicians back in the day used to get along with each other. MPs used to fight on the political stage but would still be buds separate from that. He wants people to converse about politics again rather than argue. Maybe I am too young and fiery for this but I don’t believe I can make nice with reactionaries. I will try not to have a blow up argument, and I have done well with that so far since my yelling match with my Zionist great aunt (the last “fight” I had was with my aunty who went on a transphobic rant unprovoked, if you want details just let me know, but I did not lose my temper). Maybe I am being dramatic, which seems like a genetic trait honestly, but this conversation did not land well with me.

The lecture started with the Official Languages Act which dictated that people could receive government services in both French and English. This was a strategic move to deal with the Quebec issue. Trudeau focuses on the entire country, to have Francophones everywhere see Canada as their home and to take away the “spokesperson” role away from Quebec. In 1971 Trudeau and the premiers discuss the constitution, first they had the Victoria Charter which had a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights. This BoR guaranteed civil liberties, linguistics rights, and etc. The Victoria Charter also provided an amendment for dealing with constitutional issues by giving Quebec veto power, all regions that held 25% of the population would also receive the veto which means Ontario, the Prairies, and the Maritimes. Modifications to the divisions of power would be made as well, increasing provincial social policy power. This Charter was rejected by Quebec.

In the 70s economic problems were more important than constitutional matters as some parts of Canada were not benefiting from economic policies. Newfoundland had a per capita income of 51%. So the government came up with the Growth Pull Concept, which is when economic growth begins in certain places and then grows outwards to encapsulate others. The way it was explained implied that there would be deliberate promotion of economic growth in lower areas so development would hopefully expand. The issue was from 1969-72, 80% of money. Went to Eastern Canada while the other provinces were still hurting. OPEC also had ripple effects as there was disagreements between Alberta (ew) and the feds. Because of these disagreements Trudeau tries to appease the West. By 1972 Trudeau-Mania has diluted. The WEOC reshaped the economic policy to give a fairer distribution of income, western diversification comes out of it. The result is that the West is alienated from Ottawa, resentment grows and boils over in 1979 where Joe Clark won as the youngest PM at the time. So now the Liberals los their win streak.

French Revolution class continued from last time with talking about women and ends by introducing Haiti. The Rolands were a Girondin power couple until they were purged by the Jacobins. Marie-Jeanne de Roland (Madame de Roland) was a revolutionary salonnière and advisor/speechwriter for her husband, Jean-Marie Roland who was minster of the interior. They were pt to death, a sentence handed down by the revolutionary tribunal. In her memoir Marie writes about how saddened she is that the Republic she supported is killing her.

Next we moved on to the Jacobins cracking down on women’s political clubs. The Terror went after women’s revolutionary societies and club, this was an attack on all “public women” and was done for the sake of stability. Women must return to the private sphere where they “naturally” belong. She then showed us three quotes, one from Fabre d’Eglantine, Amar, and Chaumette. So was the revolution good for women? It depends on which women being talked about, at what point in the revolution, and how one defines progress. There were social and cultural gains such as the right to divorce, equal inheritance rights, and the end to censorship (women writers are more explicitly common and now have cultural sway). There was also political marginalization as women were denied suffrage and “escitable” women were seen as a threat to the revolution. Does this make sense? Not to me, but that was the thought process.

We ended class by introducing Haiti’s “birth pangs.” There were certain aspects that were unique to the Haitian revolution, it had a lave rebellion (the largest successful one) and a civil war, which was waged between rival factions of mixed race and black people with a different view on what Post-revolution politics/economy would look like. The revolution spiralled into an anti-colonial war of independence thanks to Napoleon. The revolution used “humans rights” and “rights of man” talk to help legitimize their grievances, as was used by Toussaint L’Ouverture where he talks about undertaking vengeance, wanting liberty and equality for the Public Good.

Now we can get to Political Science which was about the DPRK’s nuclear problem, or rather their nukes and the West’s problem with that. Before the lecture started my professor states that if the Ukraine war ends then the next issue will be the DPRK’s nukes. He also went over the 3 explanations for behaviour: rational choice, sociological, and institutional/structural. The lecture began with introducing the nuclear powers, there are only 5 recognized: China, Russia, France, UK, and USA. The unofficial nuclear powers are India, Pakistan, Israel, and the DPRK. The DPRK has around 32-60 warheads and is the only country doing nuclear tests since the new millennia started. Possession of nukes requires supply and demand and there are four strategies to acquiring nukes: hedging, which is developing nuclear capabilities without real commitment; sprinting, which is to develop nukes quickly in response to a security threat; hiding, to secretly. Pursue nukes while denying intention publicly; sheltered pursuits, to develop nukes under the protection and support from a superpower.

Next we looked at the concept of national identity and why people get the DPRK so wrong (linked to Bruce Cummings). One of the reasons is due to the lack of interconnections between the DPRK’s domestic and foreign policy, the other reason is because of the limits of deterrence: rational choice dictates that rational actors calculate actions independently while deterrence means nukes are used to deter war, its to secure a balance of power, but the DPRK is considered a rogue state. Nukes and national identity are closely linked. Domestic and international perception can influence leader’s policy decision-making, regarding nukes it shows pride and legitimacy, among other things. Nukes are more than military, they symbolize autonomy and independence. In the DPRK these weapons combines Juche ideology and the state with leadership (often with a personality cult). At the end of the lecture he talks about Trumps statement in 2016/2017 where he recognized (unofficially) the DPRK as a nuclear power. I do not know what Trump meant by that, if he was playing the long on, but to me it just came across as clumsy wording. As in anyone who has nukes is a “nuclear power.” But maybe he did mean it in the Political Science way!