Activists as politicians can be undemocratic disaster

The escalating tit-for-tat between B.C. and Alberta, ignited by the Horgan government’s ill-conceived and almost certainly unlawful claim to provincial jurisdiction over a federal project, highlights a serious and not-often-discussed problem with modern politics — the increasing usurpation of electoral office by activists.

Two years ago, the New York Times ran a series of columns on its opinion pages examining the increasing push by activists to win office and thereby use the power (and public funds) of elected positions to impose their narrow agendas on citizens.

One of the columns was by Bob Kerrey, a former Democrat U.S. senator and Nebraska governor, who discussed the important — yet different roles — of activists and politicians.

“It is possible to stretch the definition of both to make the words synonyms,” he wrote. “And though I am willing to concede that the two roles sometimes overlap and that community organizers will often alternate back-and-forth between activism and more conventional electoral politics, at their best, an activist and politician do not look or behave the same.”

The flip-side of Kerrey’s point, I would argue, is that when activists and politicians do “look or behave the same,” when activists gain office to serve their cause rather than the public, they’re at their worst — and voters are badly served, if at all.

Kerrey explains why: “A politician must compromise to get results. A good activist must be uncompromising and does not have to worry about offending large numbers of people by using language that is strident.”

It’s the lack of compromise that gets activists into trouble when they get elected to public office, especially if they end up in power. The Horgan government’s attempts to claim some right of environmental oversight of the already-approved Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion is one of many examples.

Consider B.C.’s new environment minister, George Heyman, a former union and environmental activist. Who could be surprised that someone who has dedicated his life to a level of environmental concern not shared by most British Columbians might not be inclined to find middle ground or compromise on environmental issues while in office? It would be no different than putting the owner of a paving company in charge of the Highways Ministry.

I don’t mean to single out Heyman or suggest he’s wrong to hold his views on the environment. Nor is he solely responsible for the B.C. government’s irresponsible attempt at claiming a right to regulate the pipeline that it clearly doesn’t possess. But this is the kind of thing that happens when activists take over governments.

In the case of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, recent polls have been unequivocal — considerably more British Columbians support the project than are opposed, something that the activists within the Green-backed minority NDP government don’t seem to care about.

But I guess I’d ask, if more British Columbians support the project than want it stopped, who exactly is the government serving in trying to block it? If it’s to serve a minority of green activists, how is the decision to spend public funds — waste them, actually — to claim an authority clearly assigned to the federal government legitimate or responsible governance?

The provincial government isn’t alone in being tainted by activists more interested in ideology than in providing balanced government in the public interest.

I would argue the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president is another example of activists — in that case far-right extremists hellbent on destroying public institutions — taking over government with no interest in compromise. The same is true of Vision Vancouver, which has demonstrated almost zero respect for the wishes of many Vancouverites while imposing extremist and damaging changes to the city that will take years and millions of dollars to undo.

Activism is a noble thing. Nearly all the greatest changes in society over the years, from votes for women, to respect for people of different races or sexuality, to protecting the environment, to resisting wars, only happened through activism. But when activists get into government and deliver one-sided policy that doesn’t consider the community interest or the concerns of citizens with different views or needs, it can be an undemocratic disaster.