A defense of democracy

 

READ, LEARN, VOTE

Is democracy doomed? To hear day after day the fears about losing democratic rights to Trumpian/Republican authoritarianism has obviously got many of us running scared. Is the fear for our political future warranted?

First in New Brunswick and then in Saskatchewan and being contemplated in Alberta, current governments have found it okay to legislate the classroom procedure if a child asks that a pronoun and name exception be made without notifying parents. Ten Republican-governed states in the USA have done the same thing, and others are considering it. (Indiana Senate backs bill on student names, pronoun changes | AP News).

Without arguing the merits and pitfalls of this particular “parental rights” law, the prospect of a central government legislating in that way can certainly be disturbing. We have become used to the dismantling of earlier legislation that seemed to set standards for social/moral behaviour. Gay marriage, MAiD, even film classification are just a few examples of practically withdrawing central authority over what ought to be local, even familial or personal choices.

Granted, solving real or imagined social problems by enacting a law, will live on as a temptation. Problem solved, but in that solution the possibility of significant exceptions, of variations case-by-case are wiped out. Such is the dilemma created by applying central authority to the relationship between a teacher and a child; teachers come to know which students go home to loving, informed, nurturing homes and which to homes that are abusive or neglectful or oblivious. To legislate parental rights that can override individual human rights represents the common, devastating consequence of authoritarian regulation of social issues.

We do well to remember the words of Pierre Eliot Trudeau, who in debate regarding the decriminalization of homosexual acts famously quoted, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation ('No place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation' | CBC).” And before countering with the fact that PET was much hated, we need to ask ourselves, “By whom was this devolution of central authority on socio-sexual behaviour hated?” Was it the cohort that relishes the presence of kick-ass, authoritarian governance that privileges one stratum of citizens, one set of opinions?

In today’s Iran, women who allow a lock of hair to protrude from a head covering can be arrested and maltreated by authority. Without implying that Canada is headed in that direction, it should serve as a reminder that without vigilance, we can as a nation edge closer toward authoritarianism. Populations in Germany now lamenting the rise and fall of Naziism mourn the fact that they didn’t read the signs and respond at the outset when the persecution of Jews was gaining strength.

You and I have as much power at the ballot box as does the prime minister or the governor-general. Going into the voting booth uninformed about the issues and the policies of candidates might as well be declaring that we don’t really care enough to bother.

Here in Rosthern, our member of the provincial legislature is also the province’s premier. Many are weighing recent legislation against the question of democratic/authoritarian governance in, for instance, the passage of a bill to regulate the approach to schoolchildren experiencing gender dysphoria, requirement that every school fly a Saskatchewan flag, the ongoing rhetoric pitting Saskatchewan against Canada on climate change and resource development issues, the promised attempt to refuse collection of the federal carbon tax, etc. Is the promise of a new hospital for people in the Saskatchewan Valley enough to ensure that we’ll ignore the elephants in the room? I would hope not.

The point being that as long as we’re well informed on issues, and have understanding enough to rank them in importance, we’re not as subject to voting on single issues that may crowd out more important ones. For instance, voting for the party that promises to lower the tax on gasoline, or the party that is keen on sticking to carbon-emissions-reduction goals requires ranking the two policies in importance. Election rhetoric is not likely to clarify the question; science can … for anyone taking the time to tune in, that is.

Most of us, most of the time, can “walk and chew gum at the same time.” Pride in our Saskatchewan needn’t feed on the denigration of our Canada; we don’t have to give up on one to support the other. In a place where Saskatchewanians are also Canadians, and in a province where legislation would never have been forced with the invoking of the Notwithstanding Clause until now, the authoritarian approach to governance lately demonstrated should certainly affect what people rank as important as they enter the voting booth.