Essay Flashcards
Question #1
“Democracy” means “rule by the people.” Describe the most important ways in which Canada’s political system is democratic, and the most important ways that Canada’s political system is not democratic. On balance, is it correct to say that the people rule in Canada?
Introduction
Democracy, meaning “rule by the people,” is the cornerstone of Canada’s political identity. However, the system often fails to live up to its ideals due to systemic inequities, historical injustices, and concentrated power structures. Canada provides universal suffrage, constitutional protections, and opportunities for civic engagement. However, these advantages also have significant shortcomings, such as the first-past-the-post electoral system, the marginalization of Indigenous peoples and racialized communities, and increasing corporate influence in policy-making. When examining Canada’s democratic framework, it is essential to consider key concepts such as participatory governance, rights-based politics, and grassroots activism. Despite the progress Canada has made toward democracy, systemic barriers rooted in inequality and exclusion reveal that the people do not fully have the power to rule in Canada.
Democratic Features of Canada’s Political System
Canada’s political system incorporates several essential democratic characteristics, particularly its representative institutions and constitutional protections.This system includes progressive aspects that reflect democratic values, such as universal suffrage, constitutional protections, and opportunities for grassroots advocacy. Universal suffrage ensures that every adult citizen can vote in federal, provincial, and municipal elections, reinforcing the principle of equality. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, and protection against discrimination. These rights empower citizens to hold their governments accountable.
Public institutions like healthcare and education are funded by the government and accessible to all, reflecting democratic values of equity and inclusion. Elections at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels allow citizens to select representatives who advocate for their interests in governance. Canada’s parliamentary system allows for the representation of citizens’ interests through Members of Parliament (MPs), who are tasked with advocating for their constituencies in legislative debates. These features reflect foundational democratic principles, including the accountability of elected officials and the rule of law.
Structural Limitations: Unequal Representation and Voting System
Despite its strengths, Canada’s democracy is undermined by structural issues, most notably the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system and unequal representation. Under FPTP, Canada is divided into 338 electoral ridings, each electing a single MP. The winning candidate only needs to secure a plurality of votes, often resulting in MPs being elected without a majority of voter support, leaving large segments of the electorate unrepresented. For instance, in the 2019 federal election, vote-splitting among the Liberal, NDP, and Green parties in several ridings enabled Conservative candidates to win with less than 40% of the vote. Similarly, smaller parties like the Green Party and the People’s Party faced significant challenges in converting national support into parliamentary seats, highlighting the barriers FPTP creates for new or regionally dispersed parties.
The imbalance in electoral representation is also affected by how electoral ridings are drawn. Gerrymandering poses significant risks to fair representation. While Canada’s independent electoral boundaries commissions work to prevent blatant manipulation, historical instances, like the urban-rural divide in provinces such as Saskatchewan, illustrate how boundaries can weaken urban votes by combining them with larger rural areas. This practice often favours specific political outcomes and amplifies disparities in representation. It tends to benefit parties with concentrated support while undermining the democratic principle that every vote should carry equal weight. These imbalances challenge the idea of equal representation, which is a cornerstone of democracy, and can leave many voters feeling excluded from the decision-making process.
Systemic Inequalities and Marginalized Communities:
Systemic inequalities significantly undermine Canada’s democratic ideals, particularly affecting Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities, and women, who have historically been marginalized in political participation. Indigenous communities continue to face barriers such as inadequate access to clean water, healthcare, and housing, which hinder their democratic engagement. The situation at Boat Harbour in Nova Scotia exemplifies this marginalization, as Indigenous concerns about environmental degradation have often been ignored, weakening their political voice. Additionally, economic disparities create obstacles, as policies aimed at affordable housing, universal pharmacare, and labor protections are frequently overshadowed by corporate interests, leaving economically marginalized citizens underrepresented. Together, these systemic inequalities reveal the stark contrast between Canada’s democratic ideals and the lived experiences of many, especially those from historically disadvantaged groups.
On Balance: Does the People Rule in Canada?
While Canada’s political system incorporates significant democratic features, systemic barriers and structural limitations restrict its ability to fully embody the ideal of rule by the people. Free elections, constitutional protections, and the rule of law provide mechanisms for citizen engagement, but the distortions of the FPTP electoral system and persistent inequalities challenge the inclusiveness and equity of the system. Marginalized communities, in particular, face structural disadvantages that limit their participation and representation in governance.
Question #3
Choose a Canadian political party and imagine that you are working for it. Imagine further that Canada is about to switch to a proportional representation (PR) electoral system. Write an essay to the leadership of your party explaining what the effects of this switch are likely to be for your party, and how you think your party should respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by a PR system.
To the Leadership of the Green Party of Canada: Preparing for the Transition to Proportional Representation
Canada’s shift to a proportional representation (PR) electoral system represents a significant change in our democratic landscape. For the Green Party, which has consistently advocated for electoral reform, this transition offers a remarkable opportunity to enhance our voice and increase our influence. However, it also presents challenges that will necessitate strategic planning and flexible policymaking. This memorandum outlines the expected effects of PR on our party and offers recommendations on how we can effectively navigate this new political environment.
Opportunities for the Green Party Under PR:
Proportional representation has the potential to eliminate many of the barriers that have historically marginalized smaller parties like ours under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. In the FPTP system, our party has often faced challenges in turning significant popular support into a proportionate number of parliamentary seats. For example, in the 2019 federal election, the Green Party received approximately 6.5% of the national vote but only secured three seats in the House of Commons. This stark disparity undermines the principle of fair representation.
PR will correct this imbalance by ensuring that the percentage of votes we receive translates directly into parliamentary seats. This system levels the playing field, giving voters confidence that their support for the Green Party will no longer be a “wasted vote.” With proportional representation, we can expect a substantial increase in our representation, enabling us to advocate more effectively for our core issues, such as climate action, social justice, and democratic reform.
Furthermore, PR encourages coalition-building, creating an environment in which the Green Party can thrive. Our history of collaborating with other progressive parties and civil society organizations positions us to play a crucial role in future minority or coalition governments. This influence could enable us to advocate for essential policies such as a Green New Deal, universal pharmacare, and electoral reform, thereby aligning Canada’s governance with our vision for a sustainable and equitable future.
Challenges Facing the Green Party:
While proportional representation (PR) offers numerous advantages, it also presents challenges that our party must address to ensure continued growth and relevance. One significant challenge is adapting to the increased competitiveness of a proportional electoral landscape. Larger parties, such as the Liberals and the NDP, which have traditionally dominated progressive spaces, may try to co-opt Green policies to attract environmentally conscious voters. To counter this, we must distinguish ourselves by emphasizing the urgency and comprehensiveness of our climate agenda, as well as our commitment to grassroots democracy.
Another challenge lies in the need for robust organizational capacity. A proportional system will likely increase the size of our parliamentary caucus and the complexity of our legislative responsibilities. This expansion will require us to strengthen our infrastructure, including candidate recruitment, policy development, and communications strategies. Additionally, we must be prepared to address internal governance issues, ensuring that our party remains united and focused on its core mission as we navigate this period of growth.
Strategic Recommendations for Success:
- Expand Grassroots Engagement:PR offers us a chance to reconnect with our grassroots supporters. We need to intensify our outreach efforts, especially in areas where we have traditionally been underrepresented. Strengthening local organizations is essential for preserving our identity and ensuring that our policies meet the needs of diverse communities throughout Canada.
- Differentiate Our Platform:To stay competitive, we need to clearly communicate what distinguishes us from other progressive parties. Our platform should focus on bold and transformative solutions to climate change, economic inequality, and electoral reform. Additionally, we must highlight our track record of integrity and principled leadership.
- Strengthen Organizational Capacity:We need to invest in training and resources for our candidates, staff, and volunteers. Improving our digital infrastructure and communication strategies will be crucial in reaching voters and amplifying our message.
Build Coalitions Strategically:PR will require careful coalition-building. While collaborating with other parties is necessary, we must ensure that our key priorities—such as aggressive climate action and democratic reform—remain at the forefront of any coalition agreements.
- Educate the Public:Many Canadians are unfamiliar with how PR works and the benefits it offers. As long-standing advocates for electoral reform, we are uniquely positioned to lead a public education campaign, building trust in the new system and reinforcing our credibility as champions of democracy.
Conclusion:
The adoption of proportional representation presents a historic opportunity for the Green Party to realize its full potential as a transformative force in Canadian politics. By addressing the challenges of increased competition and organizational demands while also capitalizing on opportunities for greater representation and coalition-building, we can position ourselves as a key player in shaping Canada’s future. This transition requires bold leadership, strategic planning, and an unwavering commitment to our values. If we rise to the occasion, the Green Party will not only thrive under proportional representation but also lead the way toward a more just, sustainable, and democratic Canada.
Question #5
In the last 10 years, multiple people have proclaimed themselves to be the sovereign of Bir Tawil (“the land that no country wants”). What are the most important similarities and/or differences between one or more of these proclamations of sovereignty on the one hand, and the European colonization of Canada on the other?
Comparing and Contrasting Sovereignty in Bir Tawil and European Colonization of Canada
Sovereignty, the authority to govern a land and its people, has been claimed and contested in various forms throughout history. The modern self-declared sovereigns of Bir Tawil, a small unclaimed territory between Egypt and Sudan, present a unique lens through which to examine the concept of sovereignty. Comparatively, the European colonization of Canada reflects a historical approach to asserting sovereignty over lands considered terra nullius, or “empty lands.” While the two cases share certain similarities in how sovereignty is proclaimed, they also differ in their scale, impact, and approach to pre-existing land uses and inhabitants.
Similarities: Symbolism and Legitimacy
Both the sovereignty claims in Bir Tawil and European colonization of Canada rely on symbolic acts to assert legitimacy. Self-proclaimed sovereigns of Bir Tawil, such as Suyash Dixit, use gestures like planting seeds, raising flags, or issuing declarations to signify their control over the land. These acts mirror colonial practices where European powers demonstrated ownership through symbolic gestures, such as planting flags or building forts, to signal their claims to new territories.
In both cases, sovereignty is justified using the notion of terra nullius—framing the land as unowned or unused. While modern claimants to Bir Tawil describe it as “no man’s land,” European colonizers in Canada used similar rhetoric to dismiss Indigenous governance and land use practices, arguing that hunting and fishing were not valid forms of “civilized” land use. This constructed narrative provided a foundation for asserting control, even when pre-existing uses or inhabitants were present.
Differences: Scale and Impact
A key difference lies in the scale and consequences of these sovereignty claims. The self-declared sovereigns of Bir Tawil often approach their declarations as symbolic, with little attempt to enforce governance or make substantial changes to the land or its uses. For example, while tribes such as the Ababda and Bisharin use Bir Tawil for grazing and trade, these activities are largely overlooked rather than disrupted by modern claimants.
In contrast, European colonization of Canada had profound and systemic impacts on the land and its Indigenous inhabitants. Colonization involved the establishment of settler governments, military enforcement, and legal systems designed to entrench European control. Indigenous peoples were displaced, subjected to assimilation policies like residential schools, and denied sovereignty through mechanisms like the Indian Act. The consequences of colonization were far-reaching and continue to affect Indigenous communities today, unlike the relatively isolated and performative nature of claims in Bir Tawil.
Treatment of Inhabitants
The two cases also differ in how they address pre-existing relationships with the land. In Bir Tawil, the tribes using the land are largely ignored rather than forcibly displaced. While modern sovereignty claims fail to acknowledge these communities’ historical connection to the territory, they do not actively disrupt or exploit their practices.
Conversely, European colonization of Canada actively marginalized and suppressed Indigenous peoples, erasing their governance systems and severing their connections to the land. Treaties were often signed under duress or outright ignored, and Indigenous sovereignty was dismissed as invalid. Colonization systematically dispossessed Indigenous peoples, contrasting sharply with the largely symbolic and non-invasive nature of sovereignty claims in Bir Tawil.
Institutional vs. Symbolic Sovereignty
Another key distinction is the level of institutional development accompanying these assertions. Self-proclaimed sovereigns of Bir Tawil rely on symbolic acts to claim legitimacy but lack the institutional structures to enforce sovereignty. These individuals often use social media or public announcements to gain recognition, but their claims remain largely rhetorical without international acknowledgment.
In Canada, European colonization was backed by various state mechanisms, including military forces, bureaucracies, and legal systems. Colonizers established governance structures, enforced laws, and extracted resources, making their claims not merely symbolic but deeply rooted in institutional frameworks. The existence of these systems enabled European powers to maintain and expand their sovereignty over the centuries.
Conclusion
While the proclamations of sovereignty in Bir Tawil and the European colonization of Canada share similarities in their reliance on symbolic acts and notions of terra nullius, they differ significantly in scale, impact, and institutional backing. The self-declared sovereigns of Bir Tawil make rhetorical claims that largely ignore existing land uses without enforcing governance or causing displacement. In contrast, European colonization of Canada systematically dispossessed Indigenous peoples, imposed governance structures, and reshaped the land through systemic and far-reaching actions. These differences highlight how sovereignty is proclaimed and exercised, offering insights into the historical and contemporary dynamics of power and control over land.
