Last week, the Samara Centre for Democracy released a new report titled Don't Blame "The People," which was their look at the issue of populism in Canada. By way of public opinion surveys, they managed to conclude that there isn't really a problem with populism in Canada, but it was more top-down rhetoric by political leaders who employ the trappings of populism to suit their needs. Fair enough, but I have my reservations that this is a complete picture of the landscape. But while the majority of the pundits in this country declared crisis over, I have to wonder if it really is, and if there are things that the survey didn't miss, given what we've recently witnessed in Ontario and Alberta.
While the study identifies populism as the framing of issues through the lens of a struggle between the elites and "the people," and that it can be conflated with anti-immigration sentiment or "economic anxiety" (which is becoming code for a lot of other racist sentiment in places like the United States), it did not properly explain why it's corrosive to representative democracy, beyond the way it is being used and abused by authoritarians and would-be authoritarian leaders. Sure, it uses examples like Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán, but it never really attacks the fundamental underpinning of populism, which means that it leaves any exploration of whether or not Canada is having a populist moment on the shallow side.
The methodology of the polls I also found to be a bit suspect, given that they asked Canadians about their feelings around statements like "I don't think the government cares about what people like me think," "Those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the people," or "Ordinary people would do a better job solving the country's problems than elected officials." Why I think this is flawed is because it seems to misunderstand the ways in which charismatic leaders tap into populist sentiment and present themselves as a kind of messianic figure who can deliver people from the "elites" no matter that those figures tend to be elites themselves. Look no further than Doug Ford, whose inheritance from his father far outstrips the contents of Justin Trudeau's trust fund, and yet Ford is considered an "everyman" while Trudeau is derided as a trust fund millionaire who is out of touch with the people. Even "billionaire" Donald Trump (never mind that he's probably not really a billionaire) is trusted by his followers to take on the "elites" (recall the "drain the swamp" slogan), even though he's benefitted from privilege far beyond the followers that he's amassed.
This messianic figure fundamentally alters the framing of issues that I think the Samara survey missed it's not just "the people" who can do a better job of solving the country's problems, but rather this one person whom they have decided to follow, and abandon all logic and sensibility in order to support. And we have seen this play out here not only with Canada's first populist impulses under Preston Manning and the Reform Party, but in this past year with the election of both Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, each on platforms of lies and snake oil promises, though each accomplished their victories in vastly different ways. What was underlying both, however, was stoking a sense on irrational anger against their opponents, which in turn led to people ignoring the very fact that they were being sold lies and snake oil.
While I do think that there was a good point being made about how MPs, who are in the top two percent of earners in this country, trying to present themselves as just common folk pushing back against the "elites" was a bit rich (and don't get me wrong I generally think that MPs are underpaid for the work they do), I think the Samara conclusions were a bit limp. "Elite-led populism also wastes energy. It stands in the place of real concern for our democracy and directs attention away from the serious reforms needed." Yawn. They should be ringing the gods damned alarm bells because stoking this kind of irrational anger is going to have very bad consequences for all involved, and these "elite-led populists" are playing with matches.
Likewise, the report's concluding recommendations were tepid. "Media, politicians and thought leaders should listen carefully to Canadians rather than projecting onto them a generalized populism narrative imported from other countries." Erm, how about media and though leaders call out the lies that would-be populist leaders are using to stoke the irrational anger rather than retreating to the careful framing of both-sidesism to avoid accusations of bias? That would do a lot more to combat populist rhetoric than simply amplifying it uncritically.
"Politicians at all levels need to stop undermining their own role." Agreed in that every politician likes to characterize themselves as an underdog or a maverick (except when they need to portray themselves as a team player), but they need to do more than just communicate their trust and respect for our democratic system. They need to actually do their jobs of accountability rather than simply parroting the lines that their leaders' offices hand to them.
"Citizens also have a responsibility to hold our leaders to account." Great but that's more than just the wish-list here about learning more about platforms and promises and demanding transparent policy it's about proper civic literacy and doing things like joining political parties so that they can affect change from the grassroots rather than leaving it up to leaders to do it from the top-down, as has become the case in Canada.
I have no doubt that there are some valuable conclusions that could be drawn from this study, but I think that Samara badly missed the mark on their exploration of the issue, and that will inevitably give our pundit class a false sense of security something that we don't need going into this federal election, where the rhetoric designed to stoke irrational anger has already begun. The snake oil promises are next.
Photo Credit: CBC News
