WORRIED ABOUT EXTREMISTS? WE ALREADY HAD THE TORIES
Blame first-past-the-post for the abuses of Harper and Clark, Samir Gandesha writes.
Critics of proportional representation argue that it contributes to the rise of extremism, whereas first-past-the-post provides for greater political stability. But for the argument to stick, such critics need to define extremism. Depending on the definition, it might well be the case that first-pastthe-post fails to prevent its rise.
There are myriad ways in which the participation in governance of small xenophobic and racist parties could be prevented, for example, through the institution of a threshold of popular vote to garner seats — as in Germany, where it stand sat five percent.
But it’s surely a fool’s game to rely exclusively on an electoral system to address political extremism. What extremism means is closely tied to the political history and culture of a given country. The levels of antiimmigrant racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia witnessed in Europe are less likely in North American societies based on colonial settlement and several waves of immigration. Extremism must ultimately be addressed by arresting and reversing the dramatic increase of socio-economic inequality that we’ve witnessed over the past four decades and reversing the cynicism that leaves citizens feeling powerless in the face of social and political forces seemingly beyond their control. Rather than ameliorating these processes, first-past-the-post could be said to contribute to them.
Proponents of the status quo understandably avoid discussing how Donald Trump could come to power in first-past-the-post, indeed one with an electoral college. As I suggested in these pages a few weeks ago, the rise of figures like Trump has, in part, to do with the rise of cynicism resulting from the politics as usual that disenfranchise citizens. First-past-the-post contributes to such cynicism insofar as it encourages large interest-aggregating parties oriented toward the political centre to maximize their electoral appeal. Consequently, politics becomes increasingly one-dimensional and bereft of meaningful alternatives, including that of a genuine social-democratic party.
Moreover, first-past-the-post contributes to the gap between running and ruling, between what parties promise and what they deliver upon gaining power. Populist figures such as Trump, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as anti-establishment outsiders who embody authenticity, aren’t beholden to special interests and can therefore act decisively. Hence, they can supposedly keep their promises. This is their core appeal.
In Canada, it’s possible to point to the rise of extremism at the margins of political life from the Soldiers of Odin and the Proud Boys to the Aryan Nations. These groups, it’s legitimately feared, could become real political players were proportional representation to supplant the current system. Arguably, though, extremism can be discerned in this country not just in the fringes, but also in both the previous governments of Stephen Harper and Christy Clark. Is it any surprise that former prime minister Harper recently congratulated far-right anti- Semitic president of Hungary Viktor Orban in his gerrymandered and fraudulent re-election? The German Jewish social critic Theodor W. Adorno, exiled by the Nazis, once argued the greater threat to democracy from extremism came from its putative defenders, rather than outright opponents.
The Conservatives were elected to are sounding majority governmentwith about 40 percent of the popular vote, which translated into an overwhelming majority of 166 seats (compared with the Liberals’ 30.6 per cent of the vote and 103 seats). With this, they set out — not unlike Orban’s Fidesz party itself — to fundamentally transform and, arguably, undermine the foundations of Canadian democracy to realize Harper’s vision of Canada as an emerging energy superpower. Given the fusion of executive and legislative branches of government and the convention of party discipline, by masterfully centralizing power to a historically unprecedented extent in the PMO, Harper was able to do so virtually unopposed.
Some of the legislative highlights of this government’s extremist agenda worth recalling include the passage of C-51 — the anti-terror legislation. C-51 was deeply controversial because, according to legal experts, it fundamentally undermines the charter. There is the Fair Elections Act, which greatly diminishes citizen participation in the political process and prevents the chief electoral officer from encouraging Canadians to vote. The Harper government established two tiers of citizenship via the now-repealed Bill C-24. The PM himself engaged in an open feud with the Supreme Court of Canada — the only branch of government standing between him and quasi-dictatorial power. By any definition, Harper’s was an extremist government on par with the UKIP or the Austrian Freedom Party. Far from preventing this unrepresentative government, first-past-the-post majoritarianism actually facilitated it.
The extremism of the Harper government was mirrored by that of Clark. According to Supreme Court documents, her government sought to provoke a political crisis in public education that it sought to blame on the teachers. Headed by a supposedly “feminist” premier, the government triple-deleted emails relating to Highway 16, known as the Highway of Tears, along which countless Indigenous women and girls disappeared or were murdered. Over the objection of the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, Clark ramrodded the Site C dam through the environmental process, entirely without a compelling business case. By any accounting, the B.C. Liberals were extreme and cynically did much to undermine democratic institutions in this province. It did so on the basis of 45.82 percent of the popular vote, which translated into 49 seats, as compared with the NDP’s 42.15 per cent of the vote and 35 seats. Again, first-past-the-post did precious little to prevent this extremist party from coming to power.
Today, in Ontario, we see the real prospect on June 7 of a conservative government led by Doug Ford, brother of the late Rob Ford, the former mayor of Toronto, who reduced Canada’s largest city to the butt of U.S. late-night TV humour. Worryingly, it appears that, if elected, Ford will pursue a hard-right, social-conservative agenda that, among other things, will compromise a woman’s right to choose when it comes to abortion. And, again, first-pastthe-post will have done nothing precious to prevent this outcome. Samir Gandesha is working on a book on the rise of political extremism. He has lectured at universities throughout the world, was the Liu Boming visiting professor at the University of Nanjing in April 2017 and is an associate professor and director of the Institute for the Humanities at Simon Fraser University.
The conservatives were elected to a resounding majority … with this, they set out — not unlike Orban’s Fidesz party itself — to fundamentally transform and, arguably, undermine the foundations of Canadian democracy. Samir Gandesha
By any definition, Harper’s was an extremist government on par with the UKIP or the Austrian Freedom Party.