Populism versus democracy

In the wake of last week’s “Brexit” vote, Janice Stein (professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs) wrote an interesting article on the TVO website, entitled “Lessons from Brexit on why referendums and democracy don’t mix.”

How well do referendums serve democracy? Not well, whether they fail or pass. Not well, because leaders always have to simplify complex decisions into a “yes” or “no” question. Not well, because referendums often give prominence to issues that are not at the top of voters’ priorities, as this one did.

She writes that complex matters are better suited for resolution by elected representatives who have the ability, through party leaders, to craft compromises. “Leaders in a referendum campaign have every incentive to oversimplify and over-dramatize, playing on people’s fears to get out the vote.”

I couldn’t help but think of populist campaigns that we have seen in the telecom sector, with some regulatory bodies and legislators crafting policy based on satisfying the loudest voices, rather than economic principles.

We need to be cautious pandering to populist waves, special interest groups that reduce complex issues to overly simplistic slogans.

It is for all these reasons that we elect representatives who form governments. When the system is working well, parties talk across the aisle and find creative compromises that leave no one fully satisfied but no one fully dissatisfied.

It is also worth reading an article in Atlantic Magazine, “How American Politics went Insane.”

Trump, however, didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

Canada can’t become a global leader in an innovation economy by simply following popular opinion. As Canadians respond to calls for submissions for Canada’s Innovation Agenda, we’ll look for greater depth than over-simplified slogans.

Professor Stein concludes:

Pure democracy is highly overrated. It is no accident that systems of pure proportional representation generally produce dysfunctional, sclerotic governments that fit badly with our needs. Winston Churchill put it as only he could: “Democracy is the worst of all systems, except for its alternatives.” In the wake of the vote in his beloved Britain, that wise man might now say: “Any alternative to pure democracy is better.”

For Canada to become “a world leader in turning ideas into solutions, science into technologies, skills into jobs and start-up companies into global successes,” we need our political leaders to lead.

Scroll to Top