Is Democracy in Crisis?

Click the “Listen Now” button below to hear the audio version of Insights.

And look back at previous Insights issues by visiting the dedicated Insights Archive blog right here.

HERE'S MY TAKE

Two major newspaper editorials—one in Canada, one in the United States—recently condemned the actions of their countries’ governments as fundamentally undemocratic. Each dealt with a different situation, but both editorials accused leaders of turning their backs to basic democratic norms on either side of the Canada-US border. That, to my memory, is unprecedented.

On Tuesday, the Globe and Mail editorialized that Canada’s 44^th Parliament is “a farce that needs to end for the good of the country” with the opposition parties blocking any business from moving forward because of the Liberal government’s “refusal to respect the will of the House.” The previous Thursday, the Wall Street Journal lambasted as “anti-constitutional” President-elect Trump’s scheme to recess the Senate so that his controversial pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, might be appointed without confirmation hearings. (It’s not relevant to the point I am making here but on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Gaetz withdrew from the U. cabinet nomination process.)

We can get caught up in the details of either circumstance and assign blame to either Trudeau and Trump or their political adversaries. There are arguments to be made on all sides. But taken in tandem, I wonder whether these editorials say more about our present moment and North Americans’ relationship with democracy than they do about our leaders.

Both cases come down to a fight over who gets the final say. Canada’s Liberals argue that in using executive powers to withhold the documents the House of Commons has demanded, they're simply protecting due process and the rights of civil servants and politicians suspected of corruption. They argue they’re protecting due process by refusing to submit to due process and a Parliamentary motion passed by all other parties and a majority of the members in the House of Commons. Supporting the law by refusing to submit to the law? When they are called on this, they insist that they are the protectors of democracy, implying that the RCMP, which would have to decide how to act on the information being requested, cannot be trusted.

South of the border, the argument is that the duly elected president should be able to choose whomever he wants for cabinet and that the potential non-confirmation of that choice by a duly elected Senate is somehow undemocratic. Again, it is in the name of democracy that the rules of democracy could be put aside.

A “Civics 101” response about the respective roles and responsibilities of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government seems wasted here. There is something more fundamental happening. And while it is tempting to blame Trudeau and Trump, perhaps it’s more productive to consider the implications of the lack of citizens’ outrage about these situations.

Election results confirm the deep divisions within society. You can take the social media posts of any random day to provide “Exhibit A” of the lack of civility and the polarization that accompanies those divisions. I suspect divisions have always been part of democratic society since democracy itself is about sorting through divisions peacefully. What is unique about our present moment (at least compared to the decades that have immediately preceded it) is the intensity and disrespect for opinions other than our own.

Politics is always accompanied by a certain confidence in your own perspectives and proposals. But has that confidence in our day gone so far that it leads both to the vilification of all other ideas and the hubris in our own capacity to solve problems? None of these things are absolute binaries, but what if we put the rightness of our ideas compared to the wrongness of our opponents’ ideas on a scale of 1 to 100? I suspect in the past, politics was conducted on the assumption that “our side” is about a 70 on the “rightness” scale while the “other side” would be about a 30. With that understanding, even if I were quite convinced that my idea was right and better, I might still see something worthwhile in my opponent’s position. I would even acknowledge and give them a hearing, potentially amending my ideas to incorporate their concerns. The resulting policy would be even better for the common good.

The (imaginary) 70-30 split I raise presumes respect for opponents and the legitimacy of the ideas they are raising. At the very least, it makes room for the very valid activity of representing the sincerely held views of at least a portion of the population, even when we disagree. Most of that seems to be lost today. We’ve moved politics to a 95-5 split. With that assumption, on a good day, I might give my opponent five points of goodwill. But most of the time, I’ll see my political opponent as the enemy of democracy, a bigot who doesn’t respect my supporters, and someone whose ideas are better crushed and destroyed than given airtime or attention. If I find a way to have the votes align so that I hold power, I will exercise that in a manner that doesn’t give an inch. My will triumphs, even if I have to steamroll the rights of others who have won the votes to be the voice of their constituencies despite not being part of the government’s executive branch. And if it takes breaking the constitutional rules and norms to get that done, so be it.

My fear is that the hubris the Canadian and American executive branches of government are showing through total disregard for the checks and balances exercised by the legislative branches is a reflection of the population. This seems true on either side of the political spectrum as well as among Christians engaged in public life. When we’re convinced “we have all the right answers,” the only political question that remains is how to implement them.

This disregards a significant part of the distinctly Christian origins that we have inherited as part of our democratic traditions. Various European political theorists as well as the American founding debates express an articulate understanding of how sin and brokenness in the world require checks and balances since providing unchecked power to any sinful individual almost always ends badly. History confirms what theology teaches. And so there were divisions of powers with federal systems that distributed authority. The growing awareness of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers led to an emphasis on parliaments where all of the people had a voice. These are all features of democracy with roots in a realistic understanding of the human person informed by Christian theology.

The intricacies of ordering document disclosures and confirmation processes seem a bit nerdy and a lot of immediate short-term politics muddy the waters. But underlying the Wall Street Journal and Globe and Mail’s concerns are foundational points, pointing to legacies of the Christian social thought that informed Western democracy. A system of limited and accountable government is itself an attempt to apply the wisdom of Christian social thought.

There are many voices advocating specific policies as “more Christian” than others on either side of the political spectrum. Fewer seem to reflect on the consequences that come from perhaps even achieving some of those short-term policy objectives at the expense of the systems put in place to deal with a biblically informed understanding of human nature.

So, as we collectively look in the mirror, it might be good to reflect on this: which exercises and disciplines will help us replace the extra hubris of our day with strengthened democratic muscles? If we developed those muscles, violations of democratic norms would provoke more general outrage than we see today. And those violations certainly would not be normalized.

WHAT I’M READING

Beer and Popcorn, Anyone?

If Prime Minister Trudeau gets his way, he’ll be able to temporarily lift the GST on a list of popular items from mid-December to mid-February. Snacks, beer, wine, and even board games and video game consoles will be GST-exempt for a couple of months, if the minority government can break the impasse with the opposition over the documents it’s refusing to hand over (see My Take above) in time to pass its tax holiday bill through the House of Commons and the Senate. So far, it looks like the NDP is ready to play ball with the Liberals on this, offering the Grits and the Dippers plenty of opportunity to cast their opponents as grinches.

Betting on a Left-Right Agreement

Writing in American Compass, my colleague Brian Dijkema argues that working-class conservatives, classical liberals, and even the progressive Left should be able to find common ground on “reducing the tax on the working poor, or, as it’s otherwise known, sports betting.” I’ve linked the arguments Cardus has made on this file before. However, Brian’s piece is unique in making arguments for a possible political alignment in a publication that is seen to have increasing influence on shaping American public policy.

#RedWednesday

A European report documents “2,444 anti-Christian hate crimes documented by police and civil society occurring in 35 European countries. This includes 232 personal attacks, such as harassment, threats and physical violence. At least 2,000 Christian places of worship were damaged in 2023.” Beyond the details, the article helpfully provides context on the changing face of global Christianity noting that “over 300 million of these Christians live in countries where they face persecution, discrimination, and harassment.” This past Wednesday, November 20^th, was designated “Red Wednesday” by various groups to draw attention to the growing global hostility towards Christians.

Religious Higher Ed

It would seem that various higher education institutions, Catholic and Protestant, are becoming increasingly popular with students. According to this Inside Higher Ed report, it appears that institutions which vigorously continue with policies and standards in keeping with their clear religious identity see the strongest gains. David Hoag, president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, says that “schools that are really doubling down on their Christian mission are doing well.”

The Value of Disability Support

Sean Speer notes that “the maximum annual income for single people living with a disability is below the poverty line in every province.” He also outlines in The Hub that Canada spends just 0.8% of GDP on disability benefits, fifth lowest in the OECD and well below the 3-4% being spent by Scandinavian countries. “Whatever method the government uses, it ought to recognize that boosting public support for Canadians with disabilities is not only compatible with a limited government agenda but in a way it’s a values-based expression of such a worldview in practice.”

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Imposing MAiD

TAKE IT TO-GO

Cussing Mennonites

I’ll admit to surprise that calling someone a “Mennonite” warrants a five-game suspension from the Ontario Hockey League. Then again, the rationale and consistency of hockey penalties have been a long-standing source of confusion. On-ice trash talk is not the place Insights ordinarily looks for wordplay inspiration; cussing is not wordplay. That said, prior to this story, I hadn’t considered “You Mennonite!” to be an insult. I’d have left the whole incident for the morning skate but since three readers passed me a link to this story, I either have to dismiss it as interference or I have to find a way to hook into it and make it part of today’s Insights match.

I gather that most Mennonites are similarly befuddled by the suspension. While pacifism is a feature of Mennonite theology, it doesn’t seem to be the primary feature of their approach to hockey. I don’t want to make light of a religious or cultural taunt but given that it seems leaders from that community are “more puzzled than offended” and even “amused” by the entire episode, it seems fair game.

That said, the compliments of my wordplay fans notwithstanding, I think I’m out of my league in linking hockey cursing with Insights wordplay. Rereading how I’ve stickhandled this into the neutral zone, I’ll admit that so far there have been no real wordplay scores. Even as I continue to hang just outside of the offensive blue line, cherry-picking for a buzzer-beater might be both a knee-slapper and a game-winner.

Yes, I hear the chirps that I should just apply for the Zamboni driver job since I’m not contributing much to this game. I can deke, but that won’t stop the referee from nailing me for delay of game. Let’s just agree that I won’t win any trophies – not even the Lady Byng Memorial – for finding connections between religious name-calling, sports, and wordplay.

The next game on the Insights schedule is next Saturday morning. Check your inbox then.