Is Canada prepared to face the tide of reactionary populism?
Low voter-turnouts, a struggling media landscape and political apathy have contributed to a crisis of democratic engagement. The consequences for Canada could be dangerous.
By Simon Topp
THE TRENDLINE OF DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT in Canada is going in the wrong direction, and we should be worried. The key pillars of our democratic system — voters participating in elections, a robust media which keeps people informed, and direct participation in the democratic system — are all eroding. Our democratic system is being short-circuited, and we ignore this at our peril.
It is worth explaining what I mean when I say democratic engagement. This goes beyond simple voter turnout, though that is a key component. Functioning democracies not only require people to turn up to vote, but also be engaged in the democratic process. It needs people to help with campaigns and stand for elections and to have an active media landscape. Simultaneously, it demands that people remain informed and engaged in developments in their communities, to take concrete positions and choose from the parties running for office. When all of this comes together and democracies function successfully, the strength of this system is clear to see. After public deliberation, a group with a set of policies that a majority of the population can get behind is elected to lead for a time. The minority of the population, though defeated, knows that they will get another crack at convincing their peers of the merits of their position in future elections.
In principle, this promotes stability — as you do not get groups which feel completely disenfranchised by the political system and turn to violent means to achieve their ends. Furthermore, the deliberative process of policy formation that this system ideally produces, where different stakeholders are consulted in order to maintain electoral coalitions, results in better policy as more outcomes, consequences and perspectives are considered. This ideal is being short-circuited in Canada, as the people our system is meant to represent are disengaging from it in an alarming way.
The most obvious indicator of this is the percentage of voters who do not vote in elections – a number that has been consistently increasing in Canada. For example, 37% of the electorate did not vote in the 2021 federal election, an increase of 4.5% from the 2019 election. In the most recent Quebec election, 34% did not participate. The most egregious example of this trend is the 2022 Ontario election, where 57% of the electorate chose to sit it out. The consequence of this is that we have elected people to positions of power who do not command anywhere near a majority mandate. To continue to use the example of Ontario, Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives currently govern Ontario with a 43-seat majority after only 18% of eligible Ontario voters cast their ballot for them. The province is, for all intents and purposes, governed by a leadership representing a very small minority of the population. This dynamic undermines the legitimacy of the government, something a democratic system is theoretically supposed to prevent by electing a government that at the very least, is supported by a demonstrable plurality of the population. A pillar of democracy is eroded.
Canada’s problem with democratic engagement goes deeper, however.
Remember that an important component of democracy is a robust media that can keep the voters informed. The fact that Canadian media has not found a good way to adapt to the economics of modern information sharing, where consumers are unwilling to pay for their news, has undermined this. True, the flagships are still around – the Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star, etc. are all still active and surviving. However, they are shadows of their former selves. There are significantly fewer journalists being employed across the board, and legacy media entities struggle to compete with social media. There is a reason that media platforms lobbied so hard to get the government to fund them. Smaller, local papers – vital to keep the electorate informed on local issues – have been decimated, and the few that continue to exist are often run by large conglomerates which focus less on local issues and have questionable journalistic ethics. The network of Sun newspapers springs to mind as an example.
Additionally, the sources of news that do persist must contend with the fact that their economics is based less on subscribers paying for quality news, and more on outrage driven clicking and sharing. This leads to an increasingly sensationalist bend to news with less of a concern about fact checking, even in the legacy news platforms. The ultimate consequence of this is that the electorate is either less informed or is misinformed, especially with the public tilt towards social media, where outright lies face little consequence. This makes Canadians less able to fully engage with the issues surrounding the country and are therefore less able to participate in our democratic system. It also means that policy makers do not face nearly as much scrutiny, especially at the less glamorous municipal level. Another pillar of democracy is eroded.
Canada also has a related issue with a deficit in people participating in the democratic system as actors, not just electors. It is becoming increasingly difficult to convince people to run as candidates. It is hard to blame them, since people who run for office are often subjected to relentless abuse both on and offline. The pay for elected officials is also not all that high, especially compared to opportunities that can be found in the private sector if one is highly educated, motivated, or privileged. Finally, an overarching barrier to entry for people as both candidates and volunteers is time. These days, who has the time to commit several months to a campaign that may, or may not result in a job at the end? Who can afford to take that much time off work? The time deficit that is endemic in modern society has effectively strangled the flow of new candidates and volunteers. As a result, entry into politics becomes reserved for the people who have the luxury of time; the rich, the privileged, and the lucky. This reduces the choices available to people come election day, dramatically reduces the perspectives available when crafting policy, and leaves the parts of the population who feel they cannot participate out in the cold and resentful. Yet another pillar of democracy is eroded.
What does all this mean? It means the ideals that make democracy so effective – the deliberation, the representation, the inclusion, the stability – are starting to fall by the wayside in Canada. It is highly likely that this is a contributing factor towards the populist moment we are currently going through, where enough people feel disenfranchised with the system as they are willing to listen to lies spread by malicious actors and elect people who are proposing alternatives – alternatives that supporters of democracy will not like. One need only look at the convoy that occupied Ottawa to see that there is an appetite for this in Canada – an appetite that will only grow if our democratic system remains broken.
Simon Topp is a Masters of Public Policy Candidate at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. He has an interest in democratic renewal and has experience in Canadian politics as a candidate and staffer.
If you have any questions or comments, please write to us at maxbellnewsletter@gmail.com
I believe that your statement “ After public deliberation, a group with a set of policies that a majority of the population can get behind is elected to lead for a time. The minority of the population, though defeated, knows that they will get another crack at convincing their peers of the merits of their position in future elections.” is a likely cause of the decline of our democratic institutions. The basic principle that “majority rules” no longer forms the basis of our governing parties. After years of every minority having every right leads to many different groups with many different ideals following many paths. How could this lead to a cohesive majority?