A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about a decision of Huntsville Council to erect a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, a decision that they have wisely subsequently reversed. We received many comments on that commentary, a number of which we did not post because they were either racist or disrespectful.
But other comments were quite thoughtful, and one theme I noted was a concern about how much Huntsville has changed. There is truth in that, no doubt, but those comments caused me to think about the wider picture, and it has become pretty clear to me, at least, that the whole damn world is changing, not just Huntsville, and not necessarily for the better.
Let’s start with Canada.
There is, in my view, more anger and less tolerance here now, especially since the COVID-19 Pandemic. Political differences are becoming barriers rather than an opportunity for discussion and respectful debate. We see it in our own communities, in the media, and in politics.
The result is an erosion of institutional traditions in Canada, which in turn can lead to the dilution of democratic principles. The rule of law sometimes appears to be optional, rather than mandatory. We tend to become more dogmatic about our personal views and less forgiving of the views of others. We also become more concerned and frightened about what lies ahead.
The inevitable consequence of this is that people in power seek more power and feed on the insecurity and divisiveness of the people they are supposed to serve. We see this more clearly in the United States, but make no mistake, Canada, in its present state, is vulnerable as well.
Andrew Coyne is a Canadian journalist who writes for the Globe and Mail. Recently, he has authored a book, “The Crisis of Canadian Politics.” At a recent Democracy Forum in Toronto, Coyne went right to the nub of the problem when he said, “It is debatable whether we really have a functional democracy in Canada.”
Coyne takes a longer view. He argues that over decades the balance of power in Canada has shifted dramatically. There is a centralization of power, and prime ministers now wield a lot more control, while cabinet ministers and elected members of Parliament have much less influence today.
Coyne notes that tools that once restrained governments, such as robust parliamentary debates, committee scrutiny, meaningful question-period oversight, or strong cabinet accountability, have atrophied under practices like omnibus legislation, tight party discipline, and limited sitting days.
He also warns that many Canadians take democracy for granted, assuming democracy is fine, even as institutional disfunction grows.
These problems—concentrated executive power, eroded checks and balances, a disengaged electorate—while creeping into the fabric of Canadian society over a number of years, become toxic when added to the current challenges facing Canada today.
Political practices that have been tolerated for years now add to an erosion of democracy. For example, for decades, candidates for political office, both provincially and federally, have been normally nominated by their political party in the constituency they seek to serve. Now there is a growing propensity for party leaders to appoint their candidates, removing that right from ordinary Canadians, a democratic right that allows the electorate to decide for themselves who will represent them.
As pointed out by Andrew Coyne, members of parliament are generally rubber stamps for their political party, with very little opportunity to make a real difference themselves. They are literally “whipped” into toeing the party line. In Parry Sound Muskoka, we will probably never know what our Member of Parliament truly thinks of his Party Leader, Pierre Poilievre, because the current system forces him to either be a bootlicker or on the outside looking in.
We see disturbing signs of the centralization of power in Ontario as well. The Ford Government has, in the past year, introduced the Strong Mayors Act. This is legislation that gives most municipal mayors a veto in certain circumstances and sole responsibility for developing budgets. In my view, this seriously reduces the role and effectiveness of elected councillors chosen by their constituents to represent them in all matters. It can also lead to an abuse of power by a single member of a municipal council.
The Ford Government is also sending messages that boards of education in Ontario may be abolished. In this instance, where a number of boards are dysfunctional, that, or at least major reforms, may be necessary. Still, however, under the challenges to democracy that exist today, this would be one more example of centralized control, denying ordinary citizens a say.
I tend to agree with Andrew Coyne that democracy in Canada is now under threat. It may be more subtle than what we see in the United States, but nevertheless, it is there.
In fact, democracies are being threatened worldwide, with illegal wars in the Caribbean, significant election interference, threats to Canadian and European sovereignty, a weakening of NATO, political control of the judicial system, and a general acquiescence to territorial bullying and my-way-or-the-highway politics.
Certainly, the erosion of democracy in Canada is not unique, but it is, I believe, in this day and age, a clear and present danger which we must guard against.
At a recent event in Toronto, I heard one participant muse, Is Canada in a mess, or are we on the brink of opportunity?
I would certainly hope it is the latter. In fact, I strongly believe it can be.
But we have a lot of work to do.
Hugh Mackenzie.
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Proportional Representation gives more power to the electorate.
In some countries, Scandinavian countries are a good example, the governments are composed of ministers from different political parties and cooperation results in decisions which benefit much wider population than in cases where one party has a majority which is abused and benefits only one segment of the population, usually the one with deep pockets.
I’ve written here before that I find our government has become nothing more than an elected dictatorship. I agree with Michael Lowe. Party members have little or no say in the day to day of government. “Boot licker” may be a little strong and shocking, but the expression tells it as it is.
Every government now feels that it must be a majority. Otherwise nothing can be got through legislature. Forced through is the proper term. There used to be discussion across party lines. Interesting debate that was newsworthy. But now it must be a majority. A majority means that the voice of a good portion of the populace can be ignored. And further to that we get the ‘strong mayor’ concept in Ontario. Which smothers out further portion of the people’s voice. Another choke hold is the ‘Notwithstanding’ clause some governments wield like a cudgel.
Some of the legislation that the Ontario and our Federal governments are complicit in is nothing less than the destruction of decades worth of checks and balances previous governments created. But those rules and procedures mean that there has to be consultation with interested parties who have irons in the fire. But that just slows the ability of the government or group to plow any objector or objection aside. So those constraints are being diminished or removed.
We older citizens are cognizant of what is being lost. Just as we are aware of what has been negotiated, fought over and in some instances, died for. Younger people were brought up with the concept of, and the idea that, the rights and privileges we enjoy, are cast in stone. Sacrosanct. I fear they don’t take the assault being directed against their rights is serious.
We all have the right to a vote. But the law makers are doing what they can to discredit and diminish our voice. “Vote for me to represent you. Understand however, that tomorrow your voice is silenced and mine is relegated to the wilderness.”
Hugh called it. Bootlickers.
Thank you, Trisha — I really appreciated your thoughtful and generous comment.
One thing that stayed with me in Hugh’s piece is his observation about rising anger, dogmatism, and fear — and how those currents, when layered onto real institutional weaknesses, can become corrosive. That feels important.
I often think that what we carry in our hearts shows up in how we speak, and over time our words don’t just describe reality — they help shape it. Naming problems matters, and so does accountability. But when our language hardens into hopelessness or grievance, we may unintentionally deepen the very erosion we’re trying to name.
Hugh ends by asking whether we’re in a mess or on the brink of opportunity. I’m drawn to that framing, because it suggests this moment still involves choice — not just in policy, but in how we listen, how we disagree, and how carefully we speak to one another while doing the hard work democracy requires.
Thank you, Hugh — there is a great deal in your commentary worth sitting with and reflecting on.
Democracy only doomed by a lack of optimism, and respectful, informed engagement with the processes- our elected officials provincially and federally and locally need to be open to listen to all the voices and questions- not easy, but that is their job. We can all learn from this kind of meaningful engagement- or we can watch the alternatives acted out elsewhere in the world. There are no shortcuts.
Well said. We no longer have a democracy in Canada. Our systems do not work well, there are not enough checks and balances to hold our government accountable and we have unethical leaders who abuse those weaknesses to further their own agendas. The MPs we elect to represent us, the people, stop representing us as soon as they get to Ottawa (or Queen’s Park). And, as we’ve seen recently, even those that are democratically elected can simply cross the floor and ignore the will of the people. That unethical and unprincipled action is endorsed by the PM. So yes, democracy in Canada is dead. There are so many weaknesses in our parliamentary system that there is no quick fix. The politicians lack the political will to do what is necessary to right the ship, and most people are apathetic about the whole situation. We are doomed.
I agree with pretty much everything expressed. It is very sad and very troubling.
I have always said, when it comes elected leaders of nations, God is holding up a mirror in front of the nation. Nowhere is this more apparent than south of the border. I’m not sure what I see in the Canadian mirror… It’s kind of foggy.
Thanks for your take on all this Hugh; agreed 100 percent! I appreciate your optimism after all “that”..I completely agree with you there also..we are on the cusp of being a stronger united country. Democracy is messy and it must be defended; it doesn’t just happen. I’m no pollyanna by any means. I know the challenges but am, nevertheless, hopeful for our brighter future. (Canada keeps mystifying the Economists by being stable and still growing our GDP..go Team Canada!)
What a well written, thoughtful, intelligent and hopeful response by Lisa Brooks to Hugh’s commentary. It offers lots of non partisan “meat” to think about and digest. After teaching media literacy and critical analysis within the Canadian and World Issues, (Ontario Geography curriculum) with senior secondary school students, for more than 3 decades (geopolitics, social justice, environmental and economic issues etc.) it’s always a pleasure to read informed opinion comments on Doppler.
Hugh Mackenzie raises thoughtful and important concerns about rising anger, weakened trust, and the strain many people feel in our democratic culture. I share the unease he describes, and I agree that these pressures didn’t emerge overnight.
Recent years — shaped by worldwide disruption, a global pandemic, rapid technological change, and geopolitical instability — have compressed uncertainty into everyday life, making democratic patience harder to sustain. That context matters when we talk about how institutions and public discourse are under pressure.
Where I might offer a small reframing is around the idea of erosion itself. Change, uncertainty, and disagreement don’t automatically weaken democracy — in many ways they test it. The greater risk, in my view, comes when fear and frustration lead us to see institutions as either obstacles or failures, rather than imperfect systems that still require care, participation, and accountability.
Concentration of power is certainly something to guard against, but so is the temptation to view democratic strain as inevitable or irreversible. Democracies don’t decline simply because authority exists; they falter when transparency, limits, and shared responsibility are allowed to loosen.
This isn’t a partisan concern, but a shared one — sustaining democracy has always depended on people across differences choosing to work together, especially when it’s uncomfortable.
That responsibility doesn’t rest only with governments, but with citizens, media, and community leaders who shape how disagreement plays out locally. In smaller communities especially, how we speak to one another and about one another becomes a democratic act in itself.
I was struck by the question posed at the end of the piece — whether Canada is in a mess or on the brink of opportunity. I’m inclined to think the answer depends less on where we’ve been and more on how we choose to engage now: how seriously we treat facts, how generously we approach disagreement, and how willing we are to do the slower work of democratic renewal.
This feels less like a moment for nostalgia or alarm, and more like a moment for recommitment.
Let’s, in this holiday season and as 2025 draws to a close, think about how much stronger we’d be if we could commit to being a little more generous in how we listen, a little more restrained in how we judge, and more deliberate about working together on all the shared project of a healthy democracy — and not allow politics to turn disagreement into grievance, or neighbours into adversaries.
Hugh
You are absolutely correct. For years I have said that Canada has a form of dictatorship. Back benchers have no power. The Prime Minister and his cabinet lay everything out and all the party members have to toe the line. Crossing the floor means you are tossed out of the party. Thus, the members have no opportunity to provide their own views or ideas. In the US crossing the floor is common. One thing I do like about their system. But, this is not new in Canada. Maybe more pronounced now but not new. That is one thing that should be changed.