Gone are the norms for decorum and political process. Swept away by constant bloviating, obstructionism, open disrespect, disinformation and personal smears.
While politics has always been fraught with conflict, generally reality wasn’t debated or created through discourse.
Democracy is a tricky concept to define. A few believe it’s limited to free and fair voting. Voting makes up a tangible part of democracy, but overall, democracy is a belief system. So it’s abstract in nature and difficult to fit into a narrow universal definition.
Democracy can be interpreted several ways by people with vast differences in ideology & values. And that ability to shift the meaning of democracy to reflect ideological belief systems always makes defining democracy tricky.
But in Canada, the definition was stable for decades.
That is until support for conservatism began to wane.
Canada started off as a conservative offshoot of the British Empire. Staunch, rigid, Eurocentric, and categorically British in nature.
Over time, the cultural zeitgeist became more liberal, humanist, moderate.
After WW2, Canada was defined by its banality, politeness, explicit humanism and its hodgepodge social safety net.
Known as the globe’s peacekeepers and for our conciliatory and moderate nature.
Who knew this branding was objectionable to the conservative far right?
There have been Prime Ministers that have redefined Canadian culture. Many would say for the better. Lester Pearson & Pierre Trudeau come to mind. They shared a vision of Canada that was a democratically robust, pluralist, mosaic of people with shared citizenship & human rights.
Democracy in Canada was defined by mid 20th century Liberals. Secular, with freedom for all faiths. Principled, with flexibility to adapt to modern needs and pressures. Stable, with defined rights and freedoms to encourage individuals & communities affirm their values & beliefs.
This was the Canada I grew up in and knew, loved and appreciated. For all its warts of past errors in judgement, Canada became almost an ideal. A refuge for all and a safe stable democracy to work towards social equality and democratic ideals.
But what were those ideals. What was the democracy Canada offered?
Intangible and abstract, we took them for granted and they are now under severe threat.
Democracy is fragile. It’s a narrow set of beliefs and behaviours that reflect those beliefs.
Trust is crucial to democracy. There’s no democracy if there’s no trust between citizens & leaders.
Democracy is entrusting elected representatives to govern in the best interests of all citizens. We may not agree on how, but we trust the greater good is the guiding principle.
Compromise is also foundational to democracy. If the best interests of all are the benchmark, compromise is a requirement. You know walking in you won’t get everything you want, but you’ll get enough to keep society functioning & peaceful.
Cooperation is required. Conflict is a part of politics and pluralism only aggravates the potential for conflict. So agreeing to ultimately cooperate for the good of all is essential.
Rule of Law is an extension of cooperation. We must all agree that the rule of law is paramount to ensure peace and stability. The laws apply to all equally. And we agree to uphold the laws to ensure reliability and consistency to all citizens. This reduces conflict.
Political Agency is afforded to every individual. Not just those who qualify to vote. Every resident of Canada, regardless of age, gender, race or sexuality has the ability to voice opinions, call for political action and seek to have their individual and community’s needs met.
Fairness is required for democracy. Inequities, hierarchies, special privileges, inconsistency in rule of law, all put pressure on a society. Reducing those pressures are conducive to strong democratic norms being adopted. Increasing pressures reduces commitment to democracy.
Facts are required for democracy. Democracy cannot function if reality is not established.
We can disagree on how to address reality, but if we don’t agree on what is fact and what is fiction, democracy is impossible to be established.
Concession to decision making is required to achieve democracy. Every political group (political party, special interest group, lobbyist, community) must agree to concede when a decision is made. Society can’t function if decisions aren’t made. All must respect final decisions.
Consideration is also a required element of democracy. Unless all individuals, groups and special interests acknowledge and tolerate plurality, democracy cannot be achieved.
Political Dissent is a crucial element to establish democracy. The ability to provide feedback to decisions made by govt is essential. But there are defined limits to methods of dissent. Obstruction isn’t dissent, it’s impeding a decision. Dissent is persuasion not coercion.
If these elements are observed and supported by the citizenry and elected leaders, a democratic society exists. In the absence of any one or more, it is a variation of autocracy.
So it’s always a curiosity to me that some people argue that because they continue to believe in democracy, that makes our province or nation democratic.
But that’s not how democracy works.
If the people in power don’t explicitly support democracy, it no longer exists.
Regardless of your personal beliefs and values, the absence of democratic beliefs by leadership negates any belief the citizenry has.
You cannot continue to call dictatorial leadership democratic. Well you can, but that is called deluded thinking. Refusing to accept reality.
And that is Alberta’s current situation.
UCP has destroyed trust, refused to compromise or cooperate with opposition, mocked rule of law and political agency, eliminated fairness and facts, refused to concede to public pressure, rejected plurality, & tried to eliminate dissent.
You’re deluded if you continue to believe Alberta continues to be a democracy. The party elected has attacked democracy on every front. Alberta has significantly shifted to autocratic governance.
Examine your own beliefs and stop trying to define your own reality.
Before putting out such a controversial post about a convoy leader vilified and criticized for his crass remarks and bigoted beliefs, you should check for a legal opinion of what this means.
There are a lot of Canadians angry about his sentence.
Is Pat King let off the hook for the biggest constitutional challenge in our collective lifetimes; the alleged attempted coup d’état of the duly elected Liberal federal government 3 months post election?
Or did his sentencing delay include time for him to be “Queen for a day”?
I don’t know the answer to that question. But then, none of us but the judge, defence council and prosecutor do.
It’s winter. I get that Canadians are a bit impatient waiting for the spring to emerge. Americans even more so.
“The destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group by means such as "the disintegration of its political and social institutions, of its culture, language, national feelings, religion, and its economic existence”.
Same thing happened when Ottawa sent immigrants to AB & SK.
The people who came to western Canada didn’t know they were being exploited as place holders to keep Americans from invading the territory.
They appreciated the opportunity to become land owners. It didn’t matter if they were subsistence farmers, they got to own stolen land.
It means we must play smarter and stop delivering the expected negative behaviour.
It means we must use critical thinking.
Trump wants to establish the belief that Canada’s LPC government is promoting drug trafficking.
That’s absurd of course, but we’re in a hybrid info war.
Resistance to Trump’s demands for border security reinforces that narrative in his supporters. The more the left resists, the more Trump’s supporters are convinced it’s true.
Hillier is Canada’s Michael Flynn. So a different “czar” is required.
How much foreign funding was used to elect UCP to a majority? And does that funding negate the entire election’s results because a foreign source paid to influence voters. Specifically Christian Nationalist voters.
Doesn’t this put us in a similar position as Romania?
A foreign funded campaign appealing to Manichean interpretation of traditionalism: “far-right contestation prevails: pro-Europeans versus sovereigntists, Westernisers versus patriots, elites versus the people”.