Canada and Democracy: An Old Idea Stalls Another Emerges; A New "Geneva"
After 20 years, a Canadian Democracy Agency remains in limbo as democracy erodes worldwide. Canada could provide a virtual haven for democrats to rally.
It has gotten harder to argue that any Canadian government agency is the most effective solution
to help democracy advocates resist the rise of state autocracy, in countries in
Europe, Asia, and Africa. A Canadian democracy agency has been talked about for at least two decades. When I joined the National Democratic Institute in 2003, Tom Axworthy (Liberal) and Les Campbell (NDP) were already working on a plan. Several times since, the idea has surged only to stall.
In 2021, interest rekindled when at President Biden’s first Summit of Democracies, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau added it to Canada’s list of deliverables. The Government of Canada has promised to bolster electoral integrity, to help more women enter politics, and to combat misinformation, drawing from the work of the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab.
Canada’s initiatives are more specific than strategic. At the latest, and perhaps last Summit of Democracies (Seoul March 19-21). Canada reiterated past promises; then, pledged to aid Moldova, encourage young people to use democracy to protest climate change, and support La Francophonie in the Maghreb. Eclectic choices, still they are to be respected as choices made.
A month ago, journalist Paul Wells asked about the democracy agency now called the Centre for the Promotion of Peace, Order and Good Government. In Seoul, the again nameless centre rated a “holding line.”
Is POGG defunct before it began? Why the back-pedaling? Why should the idea not just fade away?
Global Affairs Canada (GAC) never warmed to a Canadian version of the USA’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They would have noted that the NED gave Congress sway over democracy promotion, at the Department of State’s expense.
Canada’s emphasis on multilateralism discourages initiatives cast as either unilateral or critical of the quality of democracy in another country.
Why risk drawing attention to Canada’s own issues with misinformation, foreign interference in elections, and declining trust in institutions?
In the end. government officials are rarely advocates in current democratic challenges. To the degree they take stands, the issues are longer-term, such as increasing the participation by female, indigenous, and LGBTQ+ representatives. For example, the Parliamentary Centre of Canada champions parliamentary gender analysis: its new CEO is a retired deputy minister.
It has gotten harder to argue that any Canadian government agency is the most effective solution to the erosion of democracy. It is unclear whether a Canadian government agency could possess the mandate and resources to counter state autocracy abroad.
Meanwhile, regimes enact harsher laws and more invasive surveillance, legislative accountability weakens, and any opposition incurs censorship and persecution. Reports from Freedom House, the Economist’s Democracy Index, and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project predict that only a quarter of the world’s countries have democratic rights and only half of those enjoy full civic freedom. We face a future where billions cannot vote meaningfully to secure their rights — their choice is to buy them through bribing officials or emigration.
As Harvard’s Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt cautioned in How Democracies Die, we can no longer take democratic norms for granted.
Biden’s summits have not answered the question of the effectiveness of top-down foreign aid and capacity-building programs in halting democratic erosion. Carnegie Endowment critic Stephen Wertheim argues that public support for democracy promotion is already low and that tying aid, even symbolically, to democratic performance could undermine national interests. He has concerns about future assistance to Ukraine and (not surprisingly) to Israel.
The Seoul Summit did see the Canadian government make worthwhile announcements, yet they seemed to signal the government’s policy limits rather than open new possibilities.
When traditional answers start losing relevance, look at alternatives. Here are two that Canadian civil society could start, and that governments might help indirectly.
Empower Existing Heroes:
Focus on strengthening the existing network of civil society organizations, from the Jarislowsky Foundation’s Chairs in Democracy to the storefront activists on Danforth Avenue (Toronto) and Commercial Drive (Vancouver).
Streamline tax deductions, expedite visas, and support groups representing marginalized voices in the struggle for democracy in at least a dozen countries.
A Safe Haven for Opposition Voices:
Inspired by Levitsky and Ziblatt, Canadians could consider a new step — an offer to host a virtual global Opposition Assembly.” A GOA would make accessible virtual spaces for secure discussion, deliberation, and legislative experimentation, with physical spaces for assemblies and conferences.
This “New Geneva” would be a digital sanctuary without a specific address. If it were to have an address, then it should be Toronto, a leading-edge technology hub, home to the world’s most diverse diaspora, and possesses, as Austin Powers (the actor a one-time citizen) said, ‘Freedom Baby.’
As a co-equal, Montreal offers a similar digital plus home for Francophonie voices.
Diaspora tech entrepreneurs could help design and build state-of-the-art networks serving an international market for secure political communications. Likewise, diaspora business entrepreneurs could start financial services. Ottawa should loosen competitive restrictions on new diaspora telecom and financial start-ups.
There will be challenges that require mitigation. Robust security protocols and a commitment to neutrality would be essential. Canada would emphasize that “New Geneva” represents a peaceful challenge to resist autocracy.
The recent spike in temporary residents has caused concern. Economics drives such informal migration, and it could just as quickly reverse direction if Canada offers less opportunity and the homeland more. Stronger democracy, in both sending and receiving countries, creates the best hope for a migration equilibrium,
The design is clear. Canada may best support democracy for Sudan by starting work in Scarborough, for Haiti in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood in Montréal, for Russia in North York, Ontario and Hong Kong in Richmond, British Columbia.
Will Canadians see democracy as worth making an extra - even disruptive – local effort? Some will. Some won’t. After 20 years, it’s time to stop wishing and look at what is possible and effective.
By offering a secure space for democratic voices to resonate abroad, Canada would build a new legacy.
New York and the “old” Geneva provide a platform for governments — autocracies many of them. Canada could give a “voice” to the other side.
Thanks for reading Opposition International! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
 | A guest post by
|
I would suggest that, before spending a lot of public funds, political capital, and energy promoting democracy abroad, it would be a good idea to define what it means for us right here in Canada. Who gets to define what speech is "free", which political opinions are "acceptable", and what internet discussions should be permitted by governments?
And Global Affairs Canada - which spends hundreds of millions propping up some very unfriendly folks - is hardly the department for this kind of work: https://www.theaudit.ca/p/how-does-unrwa-spend-the-funding
Very Very good article.
Remember the old saying it takes two to tango . Do you believe that the current Canadian government or any future government in waiting would facilitate this endeavor. If we use recent history as an indicator of Canadian Commitment it would be much promised and far less delivered.