The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy

Progressive Dialogue and Policy for a Better Canada

POLARIZATION in Canada (Winnipeg Roundtable Sept 3)

By

September 5, 2019

POLARIZATION in Canada (Winnipeg Roundtable Sept 3)

By

1. Notes from Roundtable in Winnipeg Sept 3
2. Column: Four axes of polarization in election 2019, by Andrew Cardozo, Sept 16
___________________________________________________________________________________
Notes from a discussion on Polarization
Held at APTN office, Winnipeg
September 3, 2019

Special thanks to Jean La Rose and APTN for hosting this important discussion.

On the polarization and populism , “We are reaping what we sewed” said Lloyd Axworthy. Power around the world has been becoming increasingly concentrated to a few people at the top, in government and in the economy, a trend that has been taking place over the last few decades. This leaves voters feeling increasingly left out and irrelevant. .
Add to this the growing income disparity and the fast growing wealth of the top 1% to the detriment of the rest of society, especially those with lower incomes, and those who feel they are not getting ahead or worse, falling behind, and who feel the next generation will be worse off.

When moderate and progressive governments lose touch they leave vacuums that can be filled by others. It leaves fertile ground for those with solutions that are simple, that blame elites, or particular groups, and that pits people against each other. “THEY are the cause of your problems”.

Then you add social media, which is widely consumed but controlled by algorithms which tend to favour comments from the margins that are more controversial and divisive, and that attract more response.

Populism is not limited to Canada nor is it immune from influences in other countries, be they the U.S, Europe or elsewhere. Hate and backlash have been growing noticeably in the past two or three years, where some of the positive dialogue about diversity is now turning more openly negative.

There is certainly a view that when politicians are openly divisive, it enables and emboldens others to openly speak negatively and also to act out violently. Hence social media provides an anonymous chamber for hate, and may also be encouraging hate and training hate mongers.

The response has to start with being clear, to defend agency, to defend rights and defend differences.
Social media companies have the ability to address this issue and need to be pressured to do much more. The Online Hate Prevention Institute in Australia (www.ophi.org.au ) is a leader in this field.. Responding on social media has to be substantive and not trite.

There is a hunger for a better message, for an open and respectful dialogue that hears various points of view, one that is honest and delivered respectfully.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
ELECTION 2019
Four axes of polarization in election 2019
By ANDREW CARDOZO
The Hill Times SEP. 16, 2019

When moderate and progressive governments lose touch, they leave vacuums that can be filled by others. It leaves fertile ground for those with solutions that are populist and simple, that blame elites, or particular groups. It pits people against each other. ‘They are the cause of your problems.’

Anti-migration groups, pictured on the Hill on Dec. 8, 2018, including La Muete, Soldiers of Odin, Storm Alliance protesting Canada signing the UN Global Compact on Migration. Andrew Cardozo says in this election campaign there are four axes of polarization that can be grouped together: economic, climate, regional, and diversity. And while they each play out differently, they do converge in a left-right political axis. The Hill Times photographs by Andrew Meade

OTTAWA—Increased polarization is the trend in democracies the world over and Canada is no exception. Our extremes may not be as stark, or are they?
“We are reaping what we sewed,” said Lloyd Axworthy at a recent roundtable in Winnipeg hosted by the Pearson Centre on the topic of polarization. Power around the world has become increasingly concentrated in recent decades to a few people at the top, in government and in the economy. This leaves voters feeling increasingly left out and irrelevant.
When moderate and progressive governments lose touch, they leave vacuums that can be filled by others. It leaves fertile ground for those with solutions that are populist and simple, that blame elites, or particular groups. It pits people against each other. “They are the cause of your problems.”
There are four axes of polarization that can be grouped together under these headings that will play out during this election: economic, climate, regional, and diversity. And while they each play out differently, they do converge in a left-right political axis.

Economic: There is growing income disparity and the fast growing wealth of the top one per cent to the detriment of the rest of society, especially those with lower incomes, and those who feel they are not getting ahead or worse, are falling behind. And further, they feel the next generation—their children—will be worse off. The changing nature of jobs, the growth of the gig economy and part-time work, automation, and outsourcing, along with the growing shortage in affordable housing, are the very real symptoms of economic uncertainty.

Climate: Climate change is seen by a growing number of Canadians as the single most important challenge facing our society and the world, and they want to see strong, bold plans from their politicians. Others, however, don’t believe it, or want the response to be mild and minimal. And some of the extremist opposition is strangely laced with misogyny.

Regional: It’s a long while since we had such firm and diametrically opposite regional stances on an issue. Pipelines, as articulated by provincial premiers in Alberta and Saskatchewan want several pipelines built fast, while Quebec and British Columbia insist that no pipelines should go through their provinces. A completely intransigent deadlock, with each side saying Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should just lay down the law, their way. This is hardly a position they would tolerate if he came down fervently, on the other side.

Diversity: The human rights movement has been growing over the last century and we are at a point where many movements have reached new levels of advancement, analysis, and articulation, but with that has come increased frustration with insufficient progress. The issues here include abortion, race, immigration, Indigenous rights, combating racism, Bill 21 in Quebec, and same-sex marriage.

Add to all of this, social media, which is widely consumed, but controlled by algorithms and which tends to favour comments from the margins from people who are more controversial and divisive, but which attracts more response.
Populism is not limited to Canada nor is it immune from influences in other countries, be it the U.S., Europe, Asia, or South America. Hate and backlash to “political correctness” have been growing noticeably in the past two or three years, where some of the positive dialogue about diversity is now turning more openly negative.
There is certainly a view that when politicians are so openly divisive, it enables and emboldens others to openly speak negatively and also to act out violently. Hence, social media provides an anonymous chamber for hate and division, and may also be encouraging hate and training hate mongers.
There may be a hunger for a better message; for an open and respectful dialogue that hears various points of view, and one that is honest and delivered respectfully. But at the same time, there are those who are influenced by divisive messages and intolerance.

And here’s the interesting thing: increasingly, in Canada and abroad, parties and leaders who are accused of intolerance and divisiveness win elections. That’s in various provinces and various countries the world over. So parties are best advised to handle the diversity issues with great care. One example of that is the federal parties’ positions on Quebec’s religious symbols law, Bill 21, and the federalist parties are being extra careful. At least to date. That may change as support for the law could provide much support in rural Quebec. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, will drive this issue hard, ensuring maximum polarization.

What do we do about polarization? The response needs a combination of pushing back on intolerance and divisiveness, while being sensitive to people’s insecurities. In a heated election, it seems that low-bridging human rights issues is perhaps the best way to defend them. Loudly tilting at the windmills may only help the other side, who, in the long-run, will do more damage to the cause. Such are the dynamics of the times
Ethics and trust, combined, is the elephant in the room which can play badly for the Liberals as the SNC-Lavalin case lives on and with Jody Wilson-Raybould about to publish a new book, this week.
Generally speaking, Liberals, as centrists, win by successfully establishing a balance in these sharply divided issues, but on the diversity issues, they are clearly on one side. On climate and regional divisions, they are trying to chart that middle road. Time will tell if that is a winning strategy.

Andrew Cardozo is president of the Pearson Centre.