To End Polarization Canadian Political Parties Need to Rediscover Co-operation
Source: Patricia Parsons, Wikimedia Commons
As politics reach new heights of partisanship in the United States, there is a risk that Canada is also becoming similarly polarized. Among other issues, disagreement over COVID-19 policies and vaccination has sown divisions throughout the country. The confidence-and-supply agreement between the federal NDP and Liberals has created a de facto coalition that the Conservatives say has deliberately shut them out. And the rise of Pierre Poilievre, the latest in a series of aspiring populist leaders, signals a trend toward a phase of sharper dualism in national politics.
Though there is no evidence of extreme ideological polarization among Canadians en masse, there has been more than a discernible shift in how we engage on issues. Discursive styles are increasingly tribal and antagonistic. Debates between parties and politicians are ever more uncompromising and uncivil, driven by a zero-sum approach more akin to a hockey game than a co-operative endeavour toward better governance. The categorization of any attitude or idea, even if it isn’t inherently political, into the convenient and self-righteous labels of progressive and conservative has become a daily ritual.
If Canadians and their leaders are to avoid further fragmentation, they need to move beyond deeply restricting notions of “left” and “right” in politics – and the either/or style of thinking that goes along with them. Among the political elites, there must be a rediscovery of the more co-operative functions that political parties have to offer.
The basic notion of a political party is to bind like-minded people together in order to work toward a common objective. But they are also ideological templates of governance, exercises in static and fixed thinking applied to a fluid and ever-changing world in which circumstances alter cases. This is a fundamental problem when it comes to modern governance: We confuse these fixed ideological templates with reality. As these ideologies increasingly loop back onto themselves, they shun any common ground.
The classic political divisions of left and right – progressive and conservative – hark back to the 19th century. Both offer governance solutions that may be applicable at any given time. But it is unlikely in the extreme that one particular party’s fixed views constitute the correct model for running a country in every circumstance. In most cases, a mixed approach islikely best.
This is why in pluralistic, democratic systems, opposition parties don’t just exist to hold governments to account, but also to help them better legislate. For their part, governmentsare always wise to consider criticism and suggestions from the opposition. This creates a constructive competition where varying views don’t only aim to defeat or destroy the other side but to improve the final product. Can managing the economy, or determining the future of energy in Canada, be better accomplished as a singular cry by one side? Or through an evolving if difficult dynamic, where the opposition contributes? Once sidelined, the opposition is spurred only to damn government intentions.
Previously in Canada, there was a range of ideas and flexibility within each party, and moreopportunities for them to overlap and work together. But as the tone of discourse hassoured, parties have devolved into go-it-alone vehicles, blind to the benefits of compromisefor the public good.
Question Period in Canada’s House of Commons has devolved into a childish mockery of dialogue, where the opposition attacks unrelentingly and the government stonewalls. Heightened intolerance of even slight dissent within parties eliminates opportunities to build more inter-party bridges. To avoid opposition, government legislation is often pushedthrough as quickly as possible, without sufficient contrary feedback that would, in the end,improve the result for all (as with the current federal internet bill, C-11).
At a minimum, this will bring an ironic mix of increased volatility and paralysis to Canada’spolitical system – as we’ve seen already in the U.S. – especially as the next government comes in and similarly monopolizes the agenda. Worse, as we continue the departure away from reality and toward ideological purity, the quality of policy and legislation that affects the lives of all Canadians will be much diminished.
Although it is the ideologically inflamed who set the polarizing agenda, reasonable Canadians can help slow this trend by first and foremost telling their representatives, and their governments, that they do not favour the polarization of politics. Current and future party members should not only do the same, but also try and widen the spectrum of ideas that circulate from within. That includes pushing for more flexibly minded leadership candidates. The public can also help by not voting for polarizing ideologues, and by casting ballots instead for independent candidates, who may be more measured in their views.
Only by doing so, might Canadians begin to reclaim the debate around the centre that had previously defined the country and made it work.
*
This op-ed originally ran in the Globe and Mail newspaper on July 19, 2022.
Related StorieS
