GREATER POWERS -A THREAT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS-

GREATER POWERS -A THREAT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS- By Dean Hickey “Democracy’s real test lies in its respect for minority opinion.” EDITOR, ELLERY SEDGWICK 1872 – 1960 “A community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbour as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation without specification or backing takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent…” JUDGE LEARNED HAND 1872 – 1961 KEEPING A LID ON DISSENTING OPINIONS It has been argued that the mutual confidence upon which all else depends can be maintained only by an open mind and a brave reliance on free discussion. The opinions and beliefs of elected officials are for the most part borrowed from the general populace, and a common tendency exists by those outside accepted inner circles to defy authority when seeking the right of free speech. The arguments by those who say councillors cannot trust their reasoning over others who seek to dominate public discourse is something of this kind: Since they are unable to throw over their adversaries who, in various coalitions within local councils disagree with their statements, they are somehow expected to step in line with prevailing thought on everyday affairs as shown by a majority of members. This includes consideration of those policies which affect our families, our interactions as citizens, and the very essence of public morality that has for so long defined the narratives of our society. The average person fully accepts much of what they hear as truth, yet in the face of attacks against dissenting opinions, those truths can become nothing more than propaganda forced on an otherwise ill-informed electorate. We are sometimes deceived when we think that certain elements of group-think are the rational product of intellectual and objective thought. Top-down policies that stifle free speech serve to mold our ways of perceiving things, in spite of ourselves. The power of a centralized authority is never more potent than when it produces a political and social climate favorable to those taking part in a coalition of thought that is so tightly controlled as go against our rights and freedoms. The reality is that, despite the focus that has been placed on an outspoken Pickering councillor who has sought to challenge ‘progressive’ ideology, the kind of reaction and subsequent censure is not at all limited to one municipality. Though it may be argued that the severity of debate over sensitive issues went beyond typical political discourse, the fact that extreme remedies were imposed to repeatedly enforce a one-sided sense of public virtue is an indictment on the quest for even greater powers to silence dissent. To raise this issue from the micro to the macro level in Canadian politics is to see a highly developed effort by elected officials to assume that revulsion in and of itself would be sufficient to put an end to debate, and to allow the removal of individuals from office, whether they enjoy the benefit of public support or not. I suggest the observable behaviour on the part of all major participants in the Pickering matter may be seen as less than productive, certainly at times disparaging, and at best reactionary due to personal motivations. To be specific, elected officials can question the appropriateness of universal washrooms without being discriminatory. They can express concerns as to LGBTQ material for children of a certain age group without being homophobic, and may seek clarity as to race-related programs and civic promotions without harboring a hate-filled agenda. Conversely, it is a grave error on the part of those who hold political office to wear the mask of martyrdom by way of an overarching reaction against all authority. Taking on multiple causes is not a form of liberation, but rather a burden of self-entitlement that can only result in further marginalization among one’s peers. At some point, Reason must be allowed to overtake emotion, and there is little evidence to show that much of what has become so ingrained among Pickering councillors is about to change. STRONG MAYOR POWERS The foundation upon which our Canadian political system rests, in its various forms, is the fundamental principle of majority rule. The imposition of Strong Mayor Powers by the Provincial government in July 2023 entrenched a new overriding principle; that of minority rule. Since that time, mayors such as Oshawa’s Dan Carter can now exercise almost total control over city budgets, rendering the rest of council as secondary actors on the great stage that is city hall. The law also allows Mayor Carter to direct staff to conduct research and write reports, as well as appoint the Chief Administrative Officer, department heads, chairs and vice-chairs of local boards, and establish and dissolve committees, though he can if he so choses delegate some or all of those powers to council. Ironically, in the face of a proposal for an increase in property taxes that would see Oshawa residents paying an additional 7.87% in 2025, some Ontario mayors have used their newfound budgetary powers to put a cap on such increases, and even institute a property tax deferral for seniors. A legal opinion was issued to one municipal council indicating that decisions made under the Strong Mayor Powers are not reviewable or appealable, and that the Province has said it is up to individual municipalities to determine if the powers are in accordance with legislation. A RECKONING The various aspects that make up the issue of majority vs. minority rule stand in stark contrast between the experiences of a lone Pickering councillor on the one hand, and that of a majority of the members of Oshawa council on the other. Neither has any degree of common attributes and they are in fact divided conceptually into two contrasting realities. Nevertheless, they both illustrate a growing trend towards silencing debate on matters ranging from ideological disputes in general, to the more specific question as to what constitutes the best form of representation at the municipal level. The public interest may be seen as substantially reduced when time-honoured traditions such as freedom of speech and majority rule among elected officials are thrown aside, regardless of the rationale for doing so. Time alone will show us the effects these issues will have on our democracy.